| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Étienne BERSAC <etienne(dot)bersac(at)dalibo(dot)com>, ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com, rafaelthca(at)gmail(dot)com, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2024-02-23 04:52:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkztFSryutQMNv9DnQ__NDwGE8XhhgnbdCG8e_o4T7yQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:25 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This is potentially a bit of a wild idea, but I wonder if having some
> kind of argument to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() signifying we're in
> "normal" as opposed to "critical" (using that word differently than
> the existing critical sections) would be worth it.
It's worth considering, but the definition of "normal" vs. "critical"
might be hard to pin down. Or, we might end up with a definition that
is specific to this particular case and not generalizable to others.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-02-23 05:03:42 | Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2024-02-23 04:52:11 | Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |