Re: Reduce logging during prepared transaction recovery

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2026-10-28 11:45:01
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFBjs1jZFOjHKCKw_mCTb=Ghf2=YLja4u6bcYfEjR0MXw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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().

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.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-10-28 12:09:50 pg_upgrade doesn't copy ICU rules on template0
Previous Message Alexander Pyhalov 2026-10-28 11:37:35 Re: Asynchronous MergeAppend