| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
| Date: | 2007-03-01 19:17:20 |
| Message-ID: | 12779.1172776640@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> What are *you* thinking? Yes, that patch has that line, but
> log_statement and log_min_duration_statement is going to trigger
> log_min_error_statement so you are going to get the statement printed
> twice.
What's wrong with that? If a statement triggers two different log
entries, and both are subject to being annotated with the statement text
according to log_min_error_statement, I would expect them both to be
annotated. Doing otherwise will probably break automated log analysis
tools.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-03-01 19:30:25 | Removing some of the old VC++ stuff |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-03-01 18:47:56 | Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-01 20:13:54 | Re: A little COPY speedup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-01 19:05:31 | Re: A little COPY speedup |