| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2023-10-06 15:58:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20231006155850.kjjb2vwbkawj7moq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-10-06 21:58:46 +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> Yeah, I think it's a straightforward workaround.
> And I'm also concerned that the condition of being in the process
> of acquiring some kind of lock is too strict and will make it almost
> impossible to output a running plan.
How so? We shouldn't commonly acquire relevant locks while executing a query?
With a few exceptions, they should instead be acquired t the start of query
processing. We do acquire a lot of lwlocks, obviously, but we don't process
interrupts during the acquisition / holding of lwlocks.
And presumably the interrupt would just be processed the next time interrupt
processing is happening?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michał Kłeczek | 2023-10-06 16:02:58 | FDW LIM IT pushdown |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-06 15:47:39 | Re: pg16: invalid page/page verification failed |