Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > OK, I went with this wording, using "lock object is on" terminology. > > Applied patch attached --- adjustments welcomed. > > I think you misunderstood the suggestion. This is not an improvement, > it's just more confusion.
Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but obviously I didn't understand more than that. We did have similar confusion when we clarified the locking C code. For me, "object" was the stumbler. Do you have any suggested wording? Everyone seems to agree it needs improvement. -- 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
