Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ! held by the indicated process. False indicates that this process is
> ! currently waiting to acquire this lock, which implies that at
> least one other
> ! process is holding a conflicting lock mode on the same lockable object.

> I know you're just updating existing language here, but this is false.
> It only implies that one other process is holding *or waiting for* a
> conflicting lock mode on the same lockable object.

True. I had considered whether to fix that point as well, and decided
that it might just be overcomplicating matters. But since you complain,
I'll add "or waiting for".

It also occurred to me last night that pg_blocking_pids() needs a
disclaimer similar to the existing one for pg_locks about how using it
a lot could put a performance drag on the system.

Other than adjusting those points, I think this is ready to go, and
will commit later today if I hear no objections.

regards, tom lane