Re: Need help understanding pg_locks

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 07/13/2011 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I think you misunderstood the suggestion. This is not an improvement,
> >>> it's just more confusion.
> >> Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but
> >> obviously I didn't understand more than that. We did have similar
> >> confusion when we clarified the locking C code. For me, "object" was
> >> the stumbler. Do you have any suggested wording? Everyone seems to
> >> agree it needs improvement.
> > Well, first, "lock object" is completely useless, it does not convey
> > more than "lock" does; and second, you've added confusion because the
> > very same sentences also use "object" to refer to the thing being
> > locked.
> >
>
>
> Maybe "lock" for the lock itself and "lock target" for the thing locked,
> or some such, would work.
>
> I agree that "object" on its own is not a terribly helpful term. It's
> too often shorthand for "whatever-it-is".

Agreed.

OK, new wording based on the comments above; attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +