On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Christian Kruse
<christ...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 01/02/14 02:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>     LOG:  process 33662 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction
>> 1011 after 1000.184 ms
>>     DETAIL:  Process holding the lock: 33660. Request queue: 33662.
>> [... snip ...]
>>     LOG:  process 33665 still waiting for ExclusiveLock on tuple (0,4)
>> of relation 16384 of database 12310 after 1000.134 ms
>>     DETAIL:  Process holding the lock: 33662. Request queue: 33665
>> This log message says that the process 33662 is holding the lock, but
>> it's not true.
> As the message says: first lock is waiting for the transaction, second
> one for the tuple. So that are two different locks thus the two
> different holders and queues. So...
>> Is this the intentional behavior?
> Yes, I think so.

Oh, yes. You're right.

I have other minor comments:

Since you added errdetail_log_plural(), ISTM that you need to update

>> While I'm griping, this message isn't even trying to follow the project's
>> message style guidelines.  Detail or context messages are supposed to be
>> complete sentence(s), with capitalization and punctuation to match.
> Hm, I hope I fixed it in this version of the patch.

Current message doesn't look like complete sentence yet... We would
need to use something like "Processes X, Y are holding while Z is waiting
for the lock.". I could not come up with good message, though..


Fujii Masao

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to