| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Yuki Seino <seinoyu(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add “FOR UPDATE NOWAIT” lock details to the log. |
| Date: | 2025-05-30 10:20:00 |
| Message-ID: | 7a8198b6-d5b8-4910-b41e-8d3efcbb015d@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.03.25 16:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>> Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to update LockAcquireExtended() to
>>>> take a new argument, like logLockFailure, to control whether
>>>> a lock failure should be logged directly? I’ve adjusted the patch
>>>> accordingly and attached it. Please let me know what you think!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> It's very simple and nice.
>>> It seems like it can also handle other lock failure cases by
>>> extending logLockFailure.
>>> > I agree with this propose.
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the patch!
>>
>> I've made some minor cosmetic adjustments. The updated patch is attached.
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I'll proceed with committing it.
>
> Pushed the patch. Thanks!
This patch added a setting "log_lock_failure", but the existing similar
setting "log_lock_waits" has a plural. Is there a reason for this
difference? Otherwise, maybe "log_lock_failures" would be better.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2025-05-30 10:31:59 | Re: Foreign key validation failure in 18beta1 |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-05-30 10:07:42 | RE: Replication slot is not able to sync up |