| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Atsushi Torikoshi <torikoshia(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com>, samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com, destrex271(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Date: | 2026-06-25 09:43:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZQCVNqR9JnzTPEKAr85Q91L9odhmqGEZuJ6x4V5FJ-ig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:35 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. pg_log_query_plan - This function just sends a signal. There are no
> guarantees that actual action will be performed. So, the 'request' word makes
> more sense for me.
I don't agree with this particular comment. Of course nothing is
absolutely guaranteed because the database system could crash or the
world could end, but if the target backend is running a query, it
should log the query plan. Therefore, I don't see the need for a word
like "request".
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2026-06-25 09:48:49 | [BUG] ECPG crash with union type |
| Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2026-06-25 09:30:32 | Out-of-Cycle release? (was Re: BUG #19490: Streaming standby on 16.14 stops applying WAL on MultiXactOffsetSLRU when primary is 16.8) |