Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 14:20:51
Message-ID: hzicr3kidnmwbcqwmwortldzq4fijrfca7c3prncoepgt6rpwf@uydrxvi7qhpk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:22:32AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.

But it doesn't have to be all or nothing right? I mean each call could say
what the situation is like in their context, like
slowly tag calls as needed, similarly to how we add already CFI based on users

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-02-23 14:27:34 Re: Relation bulk write facility
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-02-23 14:11:49 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby