From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: listing lock status |
Date: | 2002-07-19 14:11:05 |
Message-ID: | 20020719141105.GA20920@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:30:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> My opinion on this point is (a) pgxactlock locks are special and should
> be shown specially --- in the form of "xact a waits for xact b";
Not sure how that would fit into a UI based on returning sets of tuples.
> I can fathom no reason at all that anyone would have
> the slightest use for a displayer that arbitrarily omits some locks.
I agree. I think a reasonable solution is to have the low-level SRF
return data on both pg_xactlock locks and locks on system catalogs.
If the DBA wants to disregard one or the other, it should be pretty
easy to do (particularly pg_xactlock).
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-07-19 15:26:37 | Adventures in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tomas Lehuta | 2002-07-19 13:14:15 | contrib/fulltextindex |