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 19:19:49 |
Message-ID: | 1172517590.3760.366.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Yeh, LOG would be most appropriate, but thats not possible.
>
> You have not given any good reason for that.
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.
The reason for behaving like this is so that a message is generated
while the statement is still waiting, rather than at the end. As I
mentioned in the submission, you may not like that behaviour; I'm in two
minds myself, but I'm trying to get to the stage of having useful
information come out of the server when we have long lock waits.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff McKenna | 2007-02-26 19:23:58 | Compile libpq for pg8.2.3 with vc7 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-26 19:11:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-26 19:28:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-26 19:11:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |