On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com> wrote: > On 04 February 2014 14:38, Myself wrote: > >> >> On 4th February 2014, Christian kruse Wrote: >> > On 04/02/14 12:38, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > > ISTM that the phrase "Request queue" is not used much around the >> lock. >> > > Using the phrase "wait queue" or Simon's suggestion sound better to >> > at least me. >> > > Thought? >> > >> > Sounds reasonable to me. Attached patch changes messages to the >> > following: >> > >> > Process holding the lock: A. Wait queue: B. >> > Processes holding the lock: A, B. Wait queue: C. >> >> This looks good to me also. > > I have tested the revised patch and found ready to be committed. > > I am marking this as "Ready for Committer".
Committed! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
