Обсуждение: BUG #9840: Documentation bug on pg_locks
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 9840 Logged by: Alexey Bashtanov Email address: bashtanov@imap.cc PostgreSQL version: 9.3.4 Operating system: - Description: Hello! Documentation http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/view-pg-locks.html states that "if you are using prepared transactions, the transaction column can be joined to the transaction column of the pg_prepared_xacts view to get more information on prepared transactions that hold locks." However, there is no "transaction" column in pg_locks. Neither transactionid nor virtualtransaction could be the mentioned column as transactionid is "null if the target is not a transaction ID" and virtualtransaction has different column data type. Please could you clarify the docs. Regards, Alexey Bashtanov
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM, <bashtanov@imap.cc> wrote:
> However, there is no "transaction" column in pg_locks.
>
> Neither transactionid nor virtualtransaction could be the mentioned column
> as transactionid is "null if the target is not a transaction ID" and
> virtualtransaction has different column data type.
Yes, documentation is unclear, but even if virtualtransaction has text
as data type, it is the combination of backendID/TransactionID so you
could use that for a join with pg_prepared_xacts like that:
=# create table aa (a int);
CREATE TABLE
=# begin;
BEGIN
=# insert into aa values (1);
INSERT 0 1
=# prepare transaction 'toto';
PREPARE TRANSACTION
=# select locktype, mode, gid, relation
from pg_locks pl
join pg_prepared_xacts ppx on
ppx.transaction = split_part(pl.virtualtransaction, '/', 2)::xid;
locktype | mode | gid | relation
---------------+------------------+------+----------
relation | RowExclusiveLock | toto | 16385
transactionid | ExclusiveLock | toto | null
(2 rows)
At the same time, I am attaching a doc patch recommending using
virtualtransaction instead of transaction in pg_locks when doing a
join with pg_prepared_xacts.
Regards,
--
Michael
Вложения
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> At the same time, I am attaching a doc patch recommending using
> virtualtransaction instead of transaction in pg_locks when doing a
> join with pg_prepared_xacts.
That change doesn't really seem good enough to me, since exactly how to do
the join remains just as unclear as before. I think we'd better give an
explicit example. I'd be inclined to write it as
select * from
pg_locks pl join pg_prepared_xacts ppx
on pl.virtualtransaction = '-1/' || ppx.transaction;
regards, tom lane