Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I think we do need the patch, at least to find out if there is an issue
> > we don't know about.
> My point is that we won't find out anything, because we will have no
> idea if people are noticing the log entries at all, much less telling
> us about 'em. Of course if they do tell us then we'd know something,
> but what I am expecting is a vast silence. We will not be able to tell
> the difference between "no problem" and "very infrequent problem" any
> better than we can now.
I think people do look at their logs. We are certainly better off
finding it than having no reporting at all.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-04-27 23:05:40|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [WIP] shared locks |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-04-27 17:37:38|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql|