On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 13:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>
> > My feeling about this code is that the reason we print the infomask in
> > hex is so you can see exactly which bits are set if you care, and that
> > the rest of the line ought to be designed to interpret the bits in as
> > reader-friendly a way as possible. So I don't buy the notion that we
> > should just print out a name for each bit that's set. I'd rather
> > replace individual bit names with items like LOCKED_FOR_KEY_SHARE,
> > LOCKED_FOR_SHARE, etc in cases where you have to combine multiple
> > bits to understand the meaning.
>
> Okay, that's what I've been saying all along so I cannot but agree. I
> haven't reviewed Jeff's patch lately; Jeff, does Tom's suggestion need
> some more new code, and if so are you open to doing this work, or shall
> I?
At first glance it seems like a pretty trivial change. I'm going on
vacation tomorrow and unfortunately I haven't had a chance to look at
this. Pgfoundry CVS is down, so I can't see whether it's already been
committed or not.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
