On 07/13/2011 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian<br...@momjian.us> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Well, first, "lock object" is completely useless, it does not convey
more than "lock" does; and second, you've added confusion because the
very same sentences also use "object" to refer to the thing being
locked.
Maybe "lock" for the lock itself and "lock target" for the thing locked,
or some such, would work.
I agree that "object" on its own is not a terribly helpful term. It's
too often shorthand for "whatever-it-is".
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
