From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(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 08:59:11 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGVFGCpqpPbgjEG+tvas3y6Ayg+6XcKaTPpytB1gPOiiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Christian Kruse
<christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/02/14 02:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> LOG: process 33662 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction
>> 1011 after 1000.184 ms
>> DETAIL: Process holding the lock: 33660. Request queue: 33662.
>> [... snip ...]
>> LOG: process 33665 still waiting for ExclusiveLock on tuple (0,4)
>> of relation 16384 of database 12310 after 1000.134 ms
>> DETAIL: Process holding the lock: 33662. Request queue: 33665
>>
>> This log message says that the process 33662 is holding the lock, but
>> it's not true.
>
> As the message says: first lock is waiting for the transaction, second
> one for the tuple. So that are two different locks thus the two
> different holders and queues. So...
>
>> Is this the intentional behavior?
>
> Yes, I think so.
Oh, yes. You're right.
I have other minor comments:
Since you added errdetail_log_plural(), ISTM that you need to update
sources.sgml.
>> While I'm griping, this message isn't even trying to follow the project's
>> message style guidelines. Detail or context messages are supposed to be
>> complete sentence(s), with capitalization and punctuation to match.
>
> Hm, I hope I fixed it in this version of the patch.
Current message doesn't look like complete sentence yet... We would
need to use something like "Processes X, Y are holding while Z is waiting
for the lock.". I could not come up with good message, though..
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-02-03 10:06:35 | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Previous Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2014-02-03 07:08:57 | Re: patch: option --if-exists for pg_dump |