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 22:37:33
Message-ID: 17338.1172875053@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> One idea I had was to set the high-bit of elevel to control whether we
> want to suppress statement logging, but I think errprintstmt() might be
> best.  I don't understand the ereport stack well enough to add this
> functionality, though.  What should I look for?

It wouldn't really be any different from errcode(), but if you want
I'll do it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2007-03-02 22:38:31
Subject: Re: Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ?
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2007-03-02 22:14:51
Subject: Re: Possible Bug: high CPU usage for stats collector in 8.2

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-03-02 22:46:40
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-03-02 22:05:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

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