| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Provide PID data for "cannot wait on a latch owned by another process" in latch.c |
| Date: | 2023-02-28 07:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | 74730711-4ccb-09e4-8450-8edf14020767@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.02.23 00:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 05:48:10PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> +1 for adding that information, I'm afraid that MyProcId is not
>> necessary since it is displayed in log lines in most cases. If you
>> want to display the both PIDs I suggest making them more distinctive.
>
> What would you suggest? This message is basically impossible to
> reach so the wording of the patch was OK for me (see async.c) so you
> would need to look at the internals anyway. Now if you'd like
> something like "could not blah: owner PID=%d, MyProcPid=%d", that's
> also fine by me.
I would also have asked for some kind of prefix that introduces the numbers.
I wonder what these numbers are useful for though? Is this a
development aid? Can you do anything with these numbers?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-02-28 07:25:00 | Re: Allow tests to pass in OpenSSL FIPS mode |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2023-02-28 06:42:27 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |