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
