Re: pgbench - use pg logging capabilities

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench - use pg logging capabilities
Date: 2020-01-10 04:08:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 08:09:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> TBH, my recommendation would be to drop *all* of these likely()
> and unlikely() calls. What evidence have you got that those are
> meaningfully improving the quality of the generated code? And if
> they're buried inside macros, they certainly aren't doing anything
> useful in terms of documenting the code.

Yes. I am wondering if we should not rework this part of the logging
with something like the attached. My 2c, thoughts welcome.

Attachment Content-Type Size
log-level-stuff.patch text/x-diff 3.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2020-01-10 04:44:05 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-01-10 04:01:31 Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files