Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,"Chris Campbell" <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com>,<pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Date: 2007-02-26 20:05:07
Message-ID: 1172520307.3760.384.camel@silverbirch.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >>> The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then
> >>> invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed.
> >>> LOG is not on the list of options there, otherwise I would use it.
> >> 
> >> As I said, you don't understand how the logging priority control works.
> >> LOG *is* the appropriate level for stuff intended to go to the server log.
> 
> > Please look at the definition of log_min_error_statement, so you
> > understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> I *have* read the definition of log_min_error_statement.  (The SGML docs
> are wrong btw, as a quick look at the code shows that LOG is an accepted
> value.)

OK, I should have looked passed the manual.

> The real issue here is that send_message_to_server_log just does
> 
> 	if (edata->elevel >= log_min_error_statement && debug_query_string != NULL)
> 
> to determine whether to log the statement, whereas arguably it should be
> using a test like is_log_level_output --- that is, the priority ordering
> for log_min_error_statement should be like log_min_messages not like
> client_min_messages.  We've discussed that before in another thread, but
> it looks like nothing's been done yet.  

Hopefully not with me? Don't remember that.

> In any case, if you're unhappy
> with the code's choice of whether to emit the STATEMENT part of a log
> message, some changes here are what's indicated, not bizarre choices of
> elevel for individual messages.

Well, I would have chosen LOG if I thought it was available.

I'll do some more to the patch.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-02-26 20:10:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-02-26 20:00:04
Subject: Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-02-26 20:10:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-26 19:52:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group