| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tarvi Pillessaar <tarvip(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Detail part for still waiting for lock log message |
| Date: | 2013-08-24 14:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1377356323.8206.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 19:21 +0300, Tarvi Pillessaar wrote:
> About patch:
> Patch is tested against 9.2.4.
> I was not sure that i should check if the lock holder's proclock was
> found (as lock holder's proclock should be always there), check is there
> to be on the safe side, but maybe it's unnecessary.
> If it's not needed then fallback to old behavior (logging without
> detail) is not needed as well.
> And yes, i know that the lock holding time is not actually correct and
> it actually shows milliseconds since transaction start.
>
Please fix this compiler warning:
proc.c: In function ‘ProcSleep’:
proc.c:1258:6: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-08-24 15:01:12 | Re: Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-08-24 14:56:41 | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |