Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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?