Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Well, first, "lock object" is completely useless, it does not convey
more than "lock" does; and second, you've added confusion because the
very same sentences also use "object" to refer to the thing being
locked.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
