| 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 |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(GUARANTEE_NO_HEAVYWEIGHT_LOCK | GUARANTEE_WHATEVER), and
slowly tag calls as needed, similarly to how we add already CFI based on users
report.
| 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 |