On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:58:29PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> You are right something is wrong. However, I looked at your patch and I
> am thinking we need to go the other way and add "For" in the upper
> block, rather than removing it in the lower one. I have two reasons.
> Looking at the co
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:45:57AM -0500, David Cook wrote:
> I noticed that pgrowlocks will use different names for shared locks depending
> on whether the locks are intermediated by a multixact or not. Particularly, if
> a single transaction has locked a row, it may return "For Key Share" or "For
5ef762466f2b77209ad4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Cook
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 09:22:20 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] pgrowlocks: Make mode names consistent with docs
---
contrib/pgrowlocks/expected/pgrowlocks.out | 28 +++---
contrib/pgrowlocks/pgrowlocks.c| 4 ++-
