Neil Conway wrote: > I've been working on the TODO list item "Add SHOW command to display > locks". The code is basically finished, but I'd like to make sure the > user interface is okay with everyone before I send it in to -patches > (if you're interested, the patch is attached). > > Rather than adding another SHOW command, I think using a table > function is a better idea. That's because the information returned by > the lock listing code will often need to be correlated with other > information in the system catalogs, or sorted/aggregated in various > ways (e.g. "show me the names of all locked relations", or "show me > the relation with the most AccessShareLocks'"). Written as a table > function, the lock listing code itself can be fairly simple, and the > DBA can write the necessary SQL queries to produce the information he > needs. It also makes it easier to parse the lock status information, > if you're writing (for example) a GUI admin tool.
I'm undoubtedly biased ;-), but I like your approach. Applies and works fine here. > Also, should locks on special relations (e.g. pg_xactlock) or on > system catalogs be shown? Maybe the function should take a boolean parameter to indicate whether or not to show locks on objects in pg_* schema? Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
