Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Chris Campbell" <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Date: 2007-02-26 19:52:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then
>>> invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed.
>>> LOG is not on the list of options there, otherwise I would use it.
>> As I said, you don't understand how the logging priority control works.
>> LOG *is* the appropriate level for stuff intended to go to the server log.

> Please look at the definition of log_min_error_statement, so you
> understand where I'm coming from.

I *have* read the definition of log_min_error_statement.  (The SGML docs
are wrong btw, as a quick look at the code shows that LOG is an accepted

The real issue here is that send_message_to_server_log just does

	if (edata->elevel >= log_min_error_statement && debug_query_string != NULL)

to determine whether to log the statement, whereas arguably it should be
using a test like is_log_level_output --- that is, the priority ordering
for log_min_error_statement should be like log_min_messages not like
client_min_messages.  We've discussed that before in another thread, but
it looks like nothing's been done yet.  In any case, if you're unhappy
with the code's choice of whether to emit the STATEMENT part of a log
message, some changes here are what's indicated, not bizarre choices of
elevel for individual messages.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-02-26 19:52:58
Subject: Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2007-02-26 19:36:58
Subject: Re: SCMS question

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-02-26 20:05:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-02-26 19:31:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group