Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor@cybertec.at>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

Date: 2010-01-19T20:19:31Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:

> May I change the interface of XactLockTableWait()
> and MultiXactIdWait()? Not the return value, only the number
> of parameters. E.g. with the relation name, like in the attached
> patch. This solves the problem of bad error messages...
> What do you think?

We already present such locks as being on transaction id such-and-such,
not on relations.  IMHO the original wording (waiting on transaction
NNN) is okay; you don't need to fool around with passing around a
relation name (which is misleading anyway).

If you want to provide a friendlier way to display tuple locks, that's
okay but it's a separate patch.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.