Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait)

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 22:10:30
Message-ID: 20201123221030.GA12311@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:
> > 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.
>
> I'll see about a patch for that.

Looking at that now ...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-11-23 22:15:39 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Previous Message Anastasia Lubennikova 2020-11-23 22:08:35 Re: New default role- 'pg_read_all_data'