On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Rajeev rastogi
> 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
>> > > 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".
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: