Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> I guess it is a compatibility change, but weighing compatibility against
> clarity, I am leaning toward clarity. I assume it is this line that
> would be changed:
> _("user lock [%u,%u,%u,%u]"),
You assume wrong ... that has nothing to do with what appears in pg_locks.
Sigh. I'll go break up the locktag into two.
regards, tom lane
