From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 'Waiting on lock' |
Date: | 2007-05-30 15:39:35 |
Message-ID: | 20070530153934.GY7531@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > It'd be nice to have a NOTICE printed when a wait-on-lock takes longer
> > than a few seconds.
>
> It'd be relatively painless to make that happen as part of the
> deadlock-check timeout function, but that's typically only a one-second
> delay not a "few seconds". I think it'd likely be overly chatty.
Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second. Do we already track how long
we've been waiting? Easy enough to % off that if we do, or just have a
local boolean variable of "have we printed the wait-on-lock notice yet?"
and only print it once when we first drop into the timeout function.
I really was thinking it'd only be printed once since I expect this to
be going to an interactive session where someone's going to notice a
'NOTICE' being sent. I could maybe see another message when we actually
aquire the lock being sent if we've sent the 'wait-on-lock' message.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-05-30 15:57:17 | Postmaster startup messages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-30 15:27:57 | Re: 'Waiting on lock' |