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: 2007-03-02 20:55:05
Message-ID: 16441.1172868905@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I can create a global variable to control this, but the new elog level
> seemed cleaner.

What I don't like about the proposed patch is that it's nonorthogonal.
I see no reason to suppose that LOG is the only possible elevel for
which it might be interesting to suppress the STATEMENT: field.

Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport
auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag
in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT.
This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(),
but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-03-02 21:37:05
Subject: Re: HOT - preliminary results
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-03-02 20:53:24
Subject: Re: HOT - preliminary results

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jeremy DrakeDate: 2007-03-02 21:47:50
Subject: cosmetic patch to large object regression test
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-03-02 20:20:58
Subject: Re: Final version of IDENTITY/GENERATED patch

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