From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 22:05:41 |
Message-ID: | 200703022205.l22M5fi29939@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
True.
> 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?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-02 22:12:39 | Re: proposal: only superuser can change customized_options |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-03-02 21:44:30 | Re: [HACKERS] WITH/RECURSIVE plans |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-02 22:37:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-03-02 21:47:50 | cosmetic patch to large object regression test |