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: 2007-03-01 19:17:20
Message-ID: 12779.1172776640@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> What are *you* thinking? Yes, that patch has that line, but
> log_statement and log_min_duration_statement is going to trigger
> log_min_error_statement so you are going to get the statement printed
> twice.

What's wrong with that? If a statement triggers two different log
entries, and both are subject to being annotated with the statement text
according to log_min_error_statement, I would expect them both to be
annotated. Doing otherwise will probably break automated log analysis
tools.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2007-03-01 19:30:25 Removing some of the old VC++ stuff
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2007-03-01 18:47:56 Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-03-01 20:13:54 Re: A little COPY speedup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-01 19:05:31 Re: A little COPY speedup