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: | 2007-03-02 22:37:33 |
Message-ID: | 17338.1172875053@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport
>> auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag
>> in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT.
>> This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(),
>> but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway.
> One idea I had was to set the high-bit of elevel to control whether we
> want to suppress statement logging, but I think errprintstmt() might be
> best. I don't understand the ereport stack well enough to add this
> functionality, though. What should I look for?
It wouldn't really be any different from errcode(), but if you want
I'll do it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2007-03-02 22:38:31 | Re: Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ? |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2007-03-02 22:14:51 | Re: Possible Bug: high CPU usage for stats collector in 8.2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-02 22:46:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-02 22:05:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |