Thread

Commits

  1. Fix documentation of pgrowlocks using "lock_type" instead of "modes"

  1. pgrowlocks columns do not match docs: "modes" instead of "lock_type"

    The Post Office <noreply@postgresql.org> — 2018-10-01T09:42:08Z

    The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
    
    Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/pgrowlocks.html
    Description:
    
    Hi,
    
    The description of the pgrowlocks extension says that the function returns a
    column called "lock_type". However this column is really called "modes", as
    shown in contrib/pgrowlocks/pgrowlocks--1.2.sql:
    
    CREATE FUNCTION pgrowlocks(IN relname text,
        OUT locked_row TID,     -- row TID
        OUT locker XID,     -- locking XID
        OUT multi bool,     -- multi XID?
        OUT xids xid[],     -- multi XIDs
        OUT modes text[],       -- multi XID statuses
        OUT pids INTEGER[])     -- locker's process id
    RETURNS SETOF record
    AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'pgrowlocks'
    LANGUAGE C STRICT PARALLEL SAFE;
    
    Thanks, Chris.
    
  2. Re: pgrowlocks columns do not match docs: "modes" instead of "lock_type"

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2018-10-02T07:41:52Z

    On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:42:08AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
    > The description of the pgrowlocks extension says that the function returns a
    > column called "lock_type". However this column is really called "modes", as
    > shown in contrib/pgrowlocks/pgrowlocks--1.2.sql:
    > 
    > CREATE FUNCTION pgrowlocks(IN relname text,
    >     OUT locked_row TID,     -- row TID
    >     OUT locker XID,     -- locking XID
    >     OUT multi bool,     -- multi XID?
    >     OUT xids xid[],     -- multi XIDs
    >     OUT modes text[],       -- multi XID statuses
    >     OUT pids INTEGER[])     -- locker's process id
    > RETURNS SETOF record
    > AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'pgrowlocks'
    > LANGUAGE C STRICT PARALLEL SAFE;
    
    0ac5ad5 has updated pgrowlocks from 1.0 to 1.1 and it forgot the
    documentation.  The order of the columns is correct, but the example was
    not.  So I updated the documentation with a fresh one, and fixed it all
    the way down to 9.3.  Thanks for the report, Chris!
    --
    Michael