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 sources.sgml. >> 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.. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers