Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope
Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Tatsuya Kawata <kawatatatsuya0913@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-06-23T04:07:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi Kawata-san, On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 08:34:12PM +0900, Tatsuya Kawata wrote: > Hi Bertrand-san, > > Thanks for the review. > > > Should we add a description of the consequences of not being able to > > acquire the lock in fast-path (when there are no available slots)? > > For example, we could say that this is considerably more expensive > > and may be subject to contention. > > Agreed. v3 adds the following paragraph at the end of the Fast-Path Thanks! Looking closer, I'm not sure that in: - lock table + lock table. See <xref linkend="locking-tables-fast-path"/> for + details. the "for details" is needed. Looking at the pg_locks table, it looks like "(See xxxx)" would be more consistent. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
doc: Add new section describing fast-path locking
- 2d31da527169 master landed