I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
>> And maybe there's a good case for also
>> surrounding some of the code in WaitOnLock() with "if (len) ..."
> +1. I'll make it so, and check the other callers too.
I had second thoughts about that part after realizing that callers
cannot tell the difference between "ps_display is disabled" and
"the activity part of the display is currently empty". In the latter
case I think we'd rather have WaitOnLock still append " waiting";
and it's not like PS_USE_NONE is so common as to be worth optimizing
for. (Else we'd have identified this problem sooner.)
> Once I push this, you should remove the update_process_title hack
> from lorikeet's config, since that was just a workaround until
> we tracked down the problem, which I think we just did.
Minimal fix pushed, so please adjust that animal's config.
regards, tom lane
