Re: RFC: listing lock status

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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