Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock?

On 4/14/14, 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One concrete reason not to do the proposed trivial hack is that the lock
> readout views are asynchronous.  Right now, if someone sees a process that
> claims to be waiting but they don't see any entry in pg_locks, they know
> they saw inconsistent state.  If we add a valid state where waiting can be
> true without a pg_locks entry, they won't know what to think.  I don't
> want to go there.

FWIW, I really wish we had a way to eliminate that inconsistency. It makes already difficult to debug problems even
harderto deal with.
 
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net