Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> It'd be relatively painless to make that happen as part of the
>> deadlock-check timeout function, but that's typically only a one-second
>> delay not a "few seconds". I think it'd likely be overly chatty.
> Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second. Do we already track how long
> we've been waiting?
No, because we're *asleep*. You'd have to add an additional
timeout-interrupt reason. Plus there's a ton of interesting questions
about what's safe to do from an interrupt service routine.
In fact, I am scandalized to see that someone has inserted a boatload
of elog calls into CheckDeadLock since 8.2 --- that seems entirely
unsafe. [ checks revision history... ]
2007-03-03 13:46 momjian
* doc/src/sgml/config.sgml, src/backend/storage/lmgr/deadlock.c,
src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c, src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,
src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample,
src/include/storage/lock.h, src/include/storage/proc.h: Add GUC
log_lock_waits to log long wait times.
Simon Riggs
Bruce, Simon, kindly fix this or revert it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
