From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
---|---|
To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
Date: | 2010-01-13 14:39:29 |
Message-ID: | 3073cc9b1001130639j13a9f518ma44392a5cea1f751@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/13 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>>
>> well, i actually think that PANIC is too high for this...
>>
>
> Well, it tries to lock and then open a critical system index.
> Failure to open it has PANIC, it seemed appropriate to use
> the same error level if the lock failure case.
>
if you try to open a critical system index and it doesn't exist is
clearly a signal of corruption, if you can't lock it it's just a
concurrency issue... don't see why they both should have the same
level of message
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-13 14:56:58 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-01-13 14:19:43 | Bloom index |