| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help understanding pg_locks |
| Date: | 2011-07-11 15:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 12626.1310397083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> On Jul11, 2011, at 05:47 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thank you. I think my confusion is that virtualtransaction is the lock
>> holder/waiter, and the other two are actual locks. The attached doc
>> patch clarifies that. I had actually realized this a few weeks ago and
>> forgot, meaning this is pretty confusing.
> For consistency, I guess it should say "lock object" instead of simply
> "object" the description of all the columns up to (and including)
> "objsubid", not only those of "virtualxid" and "transactionid".
Yeah, I think this patch is going in the wrong direction altogether.
It would be better to modify the description of virtualtransaction
and pid to say that those are the "locking" entity.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-11 15:13:50 | Re: Full GUID support |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-07-11 14:59:28 | txid_current() forces a real xid |