| 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 22:45:20 |
| Message-ID: | 197162.1606171520@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-23, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a draft patch.
> Here's another of my own. Outside of elog.c it seems identical.
Ah, I see I didn't cover the case in ProcSleep that you were originally on
about ... I'd just looked for existing references to log_min_messages
and client_min_messages.
I think it's important to have the explicit check for elevel >= ERROR.
I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client,
although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to
is_log_level_output.
Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-23 22:48:23 | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-11-23 22:44:37 | Re: optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h |