| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:28:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20201123212802.GA8237@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > On 2020-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By the way, it strikes me that you could just do nothing as long as
> >> (log_min_messages > DEBUG1), so you could encapsulate most of the
> >> logic that plays with the lock tag using that.
>
> > Good idea, done.
>
> I'm less sure that that's a good idea. It embeds knowledge here that
> should not exist outside elog.c; moreover, I'm not entirely sure that
> it's even correct, given the nonlinear ranking of log_min_messages.
Well, we already do this in a number of places. But I can get behind
this:
> Maybe it'd be a good idea to have elog.c expose a new function
> along the lines of "bool message_level_is_interesting(int elevel)"
> to support this and similar future optimizations in a less fragile way.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-11-23 21:34:56 | Re: deferred primary key and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-23 21:20:29 | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |