| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help understanding pg_locks |
| Date: | 2011-07-13 18:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | 201107131858.p6DIwhk24819@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug wrote:
> We could also get rid of the noun completely by saying
>
> (D)
> "Locked page number within the relation, or null if it isn't
> a tuple or relation page that is locked".
>
> I personally slightly favor (D).
I don't think we can use "Locked" here because the lock might not be
granted.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-07-13 19:04:48 | Re: Small patch for GiST: move childoffnum to child |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-07-13 18:56:47 | Re: Small patch for GiST: move childoffnum to child |