Re: Need help understanding pg_locks

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > OK, I went with this wording, using "lock object is on" terminology. 
> > Applied patch attached --- adjustments welcomed.
> 
> I think you misunderstood the suggestion.  This is not an improvement,
> it's just more confusion.

Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but
obviously I didn't understand more than that.  We did have similar
confusion when we clarified the locking C code.  For me, "object" was
the stumbler.  Do you have any suggested wording?  Everyone seems to
agree it needs improvement.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +