Tom Lane escribió: > My feeling about this code is that the reason we print the infomask in > hex is so you can see exactly which bits are set if you care, and that > the rest of the line ought to be designed to interpret the bits in as > reader-friendly a way as possible. So I don't buy the notion that we > should just print out a name for each bit that's set. I'd rather > replace individual bit names with items like LOCKED_FOR_KEY_SHARE, > LOCKED_FOR_SHARE, etc in cases where you have to combine multiple > bits to understand the meaning.
Okay, that's what I've been saying all along so I cannot but agree. I haven't reviewed Jeff's patch lately; Jeff, does Tom's suggestion need some more new code, and if so are you open to doing this work, or shall I? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
