On 04 February 2014 14:38, Myself wrote:

> 
> On 4th February 2014, Christian kruse Wrote:
> > On 04/02/14 12:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > Thought?
> >
> > Sounds reasonable to me. Attached patch changes messages to the
> > following:
> >
> > Process holding the lock: A. Wait queue: B.
> > Processes holding the lock: A, B. Wait queue: C.
> 
> This looks good to me also.

I have tested the revised patch and found ready to be committed.

I am marking this as "Ready for Committer".

Thanks and Regards,
Kumar Rajeev Rastogi


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

Reply via email to