Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote:
 On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 13:34 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
 
  I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand
  why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent
  with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log
  file.
 
 Yeh, LOG would be most appropriate, but thats not possible.
 
 log_min_messages allows only DEBUG5, DEBUG4, DEBUG3, DEBUG2, DEBUG1,
 INFO, NOTICE and WARNING for non-error states.
 
 Possibly DEBUG1?

This highlights a problem we have often had with LOG output where we
also want the query.

I think there are two possible approaches.  First, we could add a new
bitmap value like LOG_STATEMENT to ereport when we want the statement
with the log line:

ereport (LOG | LOG_STATEMENT, ...)

(or a new LOG_WITH_STATEMENT log level) and a new GUC like
log_include_statement that would control the output of statements for
certain GUC parameters, and we document with GUC values it controls.

A simpler idea would be to unconditionally include the query in the
errdetail() of the actual LOG ereport.

This is not the first GUC that has needed this.  We had this issue with
log_temp_files, which we just added, and the only suggested solution
was to use log_statement = 'all'.  Either of these ideas above would be
useful for this as well.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 This is not the first GUC that has needed this.

Exactly.  I think that we simply made a mistake in the initial
implementation of log_min_error_statement: we failed to think about
whether it should use client or server priority ordering, and the
easy-to-code behavior was the wrong one.

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