Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 19:31:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
> As I said, you don't understand how the logging priority control works.
> LOG *is* the appropriate level for stuff intended to go to the server log.

Please look at the definition of log_min_error_statement, so you
understand where I'm coming from.

  Simon Riggs             

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2007-02-26 19:36:58
Subject: Re: SCMS question
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-02-26 19:28:29
Subject: Re: Simple Column reordering

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-26 19:52:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-26 19:28:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group