On 14.03.25 16:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>> Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to update LockAcquireExtended() to
>>>> take a new argument, like logLockFailure, to control whether
>>>> a lock failure should be logged directly? I’ve adjusted the patch
>>>> accordingly and attached it. Please let me know what you think!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> It's very simple and nice.
>>> It seems like it can also handle other lock failure cases by
>>> extending logLockFailure.
>>> > I agree with this propose.
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the patch!
>>
>> I've made some minor cosmetic adjustments. The updated patch is attached.
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I'll proceed with committing it.
>
> Pushed the patch. Thanks!
This patch added a setting "log_lock_failure", but the existing similar
setting "log_lock_waits" has a plural. Is there a reason for this
difference? Otherwise, maybe "log_lock_failures" would be better.
