| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |
| Date: | 2020-11-23 23:13:17 |
| Message-ID: | 198415.1606173197@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not too fussed about whether we invent is_log_level_output_client,
>> although that name doesn't seem well-chosen compared to
>> is_log_level_output.
> Just replacing "log" for "client" in that seemed strictly worse, and I
> didn't (don't) have any other ideas.
I never cared that much for "is_log_level_output" either. Thinking
about renaming it to "should_output_to_log()", and then the new function
would be "should_output_to_client()".
>> Shall I press forward with this, or do you want to?
> Please feel free to go ahead, including the change to ProcSleep.
Will do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-11-23 23:30:18 | Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-11-23 23:06:22 | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path |