| From: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
| Date: | 2014-02-03 11:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20140203115352.GB14043@defunct.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Simon,
On 03/02/14 10:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Singular:
> > "The following process is holding the lock: A. The request queue
> > consists of: B."
> >
> > Plural:
> > "Following processes are holding the lock: A, B. The request queue
> > consists of: C."
>
> Seems too complex. How about this...
>
> "Lock holder(s): A. Lock waiter(s) B"
> "Lock holder(s): A, B. Lock waiter(s) C"
This is basically the same as before, it is even shorter. The
complaint was that I don't use a whole sentence in this error
detail. Won't the change fulfill the same complaint?
To be honest, I'd like to stick with your earlier proposal:
Singular:
Process holding the lock: A. Request queue: B
Plural:
Processes holding the lock: A, B. Request queue: C, D
This seems to be a good trade-off between project guidelines,
readability and parsability.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-03 12:15:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. |
| Previous Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-02-03 11:47:53 | Re: Patch: show xid and xmin in pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication |