| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |
| Date: | 2020-11-23 21:20:29 |
| Message-ID: | 129515.1606166429@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> By the way, it strikes me that you could just do nothing as long as
>> (log_min_messages > DEBUG1), so you could encapsulate most of the
>> logic that plays with the lock tag using that.
> Good idea, done.
I'm less sure that that's a good idea. It embeds knowledge here that
should not exist outside elog.c; moreover, I'm not entirely sure that
it's even correct, given the nonlinear ranking of log_min_messages.
Maybe it'd be a good idea to have elog.c expose a new function
along the lines of "bool message_level_is_interesting(int elevel)"
to support this and similar future optimizations in a less fragile way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-11-23 21:28:02 | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |
| Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-11-23 21:17:54 | Re: Online verification of checksums |