Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> The idea was to indicate if the process is likely to be causing a locking
> problem - but now I think about it, a more useful pice of information would
> be if any tables/rows/whatever are locked in such a way that another user
> might be prevented from doing an update. Is this possible?
Don't see how you could convey a useful amount of info in the space
available. There are way too many levels of way too many locks that
might or might not conflict with someone else. (Even a read-only
transaction grabs read locks, so it's not like the presence or absence
of any lock is sufficient info to be useful.)
There was another thread recently about adding a SHOW command or some
such to dump out the state of the lock manager's table in a readable
form. I think that'd be a more useful thing to work on than trying
to cram one or two bits' worth of info into the ps display.
regards, tom lane
