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

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Date: 2007-03-01 19:17:20
Message-ID: 12779.1172776640@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> What are *you* thinking?  Yes, that patch has that line, but
> log_statement and log_min_duration_statement is going to trigger
> log_min_error_statement so you are going to get the statement printed
> twice.

What's wrong with that?  If a statement triggers two different log
entries, and both are subject to being annotated with the statement text
according to log_min_error_statement, I would expect them both to be
annotated.  Doing otherwise will probably break automated log analysis
tools.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-03-01 19:30:25
Subject: Removing some of the old VC++ stuff
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2007-03-01 18:47:56
Subject: Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-03-01 20:13:54
Subject: Re: A little COPY speedup
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-03-01 19:05:31
Subject: Re: A little COPY speedup

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