Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I can create a global variable to control this, but the new elog level
> > seemed cleaner.
>
> What I don't like about the proposed patch is that it's nonorthogonal.
> I see no reason to suppose that LOG is the only possible elevel for
> which it might be interesting to suppress the STATEMENT: field.

True.

> Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport
> auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag
> in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT.
> This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(),
> but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway.

One idea I had was to set the high-bit of elevel to control whether we
want to suppress statement logging, but I think errprintstmt() might be
best. I don't understand the ereport stack well enough to add this
functionality, though. What should I look for?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +