Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: > > On Jul11, 2011, at 05:47 , Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Thank you. I think my confusion is that virtualtransaction is the lock > >> holder/waiter, and the other two are actual locks. The attached doc > >> patch clarifies that. I had actually realized this a few weeks ago and > >> forgot, meaning this is pretty confusing. > > > For consistency, I guess it should say "lock object" instead of simply > > "object" the description of all the columns up to (and including) > > "objsubid", not only those of "virtualxid" and "transactionid". > > Yeah, I think this patch is going in the wrong direction altogether. > It would be better to modify the description of virtualtransaction > and pid to say that those are the "locking" entity.
OK, so as I understand it, in pg_locks: Column | Type | Modifiers --------------------+----------+----------- locktype | text | database | oid | relation | oid | page | integer | tuple | smallint | virtualxid | text | transactionid | xid | classid | oid | objid | oid | objsubid | smallint | virtualtransaction | text | pid | integer | mode | text | granted | boolean | It is the last four that are related to the "locking entity". I don't see a way of improving the description of the last four columns: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/view-pg-locks.html What was unclear to me was that the earlier columns (illogically) vaguely represented the locked object. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers