Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: > > On Jul11, 2011, at 17:11 , Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, I think this patch is going in the wrong direction altogether. > >> It would be better to modify the description of virtualtransaction > >> and pid to say that those are the "locking" entity. > > > Hm, we already kinda of say that. Both descriptions include the phrase > > "... holding or awaiting this lock.". The column "mode" says > > "... held or desired by this process", which I guess is similar enough > > to make it clear that these are related. > > > Its the columns which refer to the locked object which simply say > > "object", and thus leave it open if that means locked or a locking. > > > Could we split that table in two parts, one for the fields referring > > to the locked object and one for the locking entity, or does that depart > > too far from the way we document other system catalogs and views? > > Then you'd have to join them, which would not be an improvement from > anybody's standpoint. > > Maybe we could just add a paragraph above the "pg_locks Columns" table > that says explicitly that virtualtransaction and pid describe the entity > holding or awaiting the lock, and the others describe the object being > locked? Any way you slice it, putting this information into the > per-column table is going to be repetitive.
Frankly, whenever anyone says "object", they might as well call it "thing". It seems to be a content-less word. Maybe just replace the word "object" with "lock". -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
