Tom Lane escribió:
> My feeling about this code is that the reason we print the infomask in
> hex is so you can see exactly which bits are set if you care, and that
> the rest of the line ought to be designed to interpret the bits in as
> reader-friendly a way as possible. So I don't buy the notion that we
> should just print out a name for each bit that's set. I'd rather
> replace individual bit names with items like LOCKED_FOR_KEY_SHARE,
> LOCKED_FOR_SHARE, etc in cases where you have to combine multiple
> bits to understand the meaning.
Okay, that's what I've been saying all along so I cannot but agree. I
haven't reviewed Jeff's patch lately; Jeff, does Tom's suggestion need
some more new code, and if so are you open to doing this work, or shall
I?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
