From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why is lorikeet so unstable in v14 branch only?
In-reply-to: <278381.1648398683@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <136102.1648320427@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220326194948.mksfw6z3fysojpxx@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <aee3de02-1e5d-ae0a-c3e7-23cb1ef8cd70@dunslane.net>
 <167387.1648329583@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <0b9defaa-07a3-7329-4f9d-5fc2c4a89170@dunslane.net>
 <174838.1648332620@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <f6d7b1f1-da4d-8806-a988-27e82acf65a0@dunslane.net>
 <278381.1648398683@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:31:23 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <380707.1648400491.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:01:31 -0400
Message-ID: <380708.1648400491@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/380708.1648400491%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@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