On 14.03.25 16:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to update LockAcquireExtended() to
take a new argument, like logLockFailure, to control whether
a lock failure should be logged directly? I’ve adjusted the patch
accordingly and attached it. Please let me know what you think!
Regards,
Thank you!
It's very simple and nice.
It seems like it can also handle other lock failure cases by
extending logLockFailure.
> I agree with this propose.
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
I've made some minor cosmetic adjustments. The updated patch is attached.
Unless there are any objections, I'll proceed with committing it.
Pushed the patch. Thanks!
This patch added a setting "log_lock_failure", but the existing similar
setting "log_lock_waits" has a plural. Is there a reason for this
difference? Otherwise, maybe "log_lock_failures" would be better.
