Re: Reduce logging during prepared transaction recovery

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Forstmann <pierre(dot)forstmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reduce logging during prepared transaction recovery
Date: 2026-10-29 01:16:11
Message-ID: 50B0110A-6990-4396-865D-117AAF425150@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Oct 28, 2026, at 19:45, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 7:15 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the review and suggestions. I agree that we can verify
>> these changes by adding log checks to the existing TAP test for
>> two-phase transactions. I’ve done that in the attached patch, which is
>> based on the changes suggested in your earlier patch. Please take a
>> look and let me know if you have any other comments.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> - ereport(LOG,
> + ereport(DEBUG1,
>
> Do we want to keep this debug message translatable? If not, we could
> simplify this to elog().

Ah, that’s a good point.

>
> Also, DEBUG2 might be more consistent with per-transaction messages
> in PrepareRedoAdd() and PrepareRedoRemoveFull()? Those use elog(DEBUG2, ...).
> This would also avoid flooding the log at DEBUG1.
>

+1

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keyerror Smart 2026-10-29 01:16:52 Re: [PATCH] Consider window functions when reordering GROUP BY items
Previous Message shihao zhong 2026-10-29 01:02:41 Re: Any reason to keep HEAP_HASOID_OLD?