On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Christian Kruse
<christ...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> On 03/02/14 10:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > Singular:
>> > "The following process is holding the lock: A. The request queue
>> > consists of: B."
>> >
>> > Plural:
>> > "Following processes are holding the lock: A, B. The request queue
>> > consists of: C."
>> Seems too complex. How about this...
>> "Lock holder(s): A. Lock waiter(s) B"
>> "Lock holder(s): A, B. Lock waiter(s) C"
> This is basically the same as before, it is even shorter. The
> complaint was that I don't use a whole sentence in this error
> detail. Won't the change fulfill the same complaint?
> To be honest, I'd like to stick with your earlier proposal:
> Singular:
> Process holding the lock: A. Request queue: B
> Plural:
> Processes holding the lock: A, B. Request queue: C, D
> This seems to be a good trade-off between project guidelines,
> readability and parsability.

ISTM that the phrase "Request queue" is not used much around the lock.
Using the phrase "wait queue" or Simon's suggestion sound better to at least me.


Fujii Masao

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

Reply via email to