From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Issue NOTICE for attempt to raise lock level? |
Date: | 2000-11-07 18:23:33 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0011071919520.1192-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> To help debug this, I'm planning to add a little bit of code to the
> lock manager that detects a request for a lock on an object on which
> we already hold a lock of a lower level. What I'm wondering about is
> whether to make the report be elog(DEBUG) --- ie, send to postmaster
> log only --- or elog(NOTICE), so that users would see it by default.
To me this seems to be a little like the much-disputed notice for adding
implicit range-table entries: Either it's an error, then you abort, or
it's legal, then you leave the user alone and perhaps explain failure
scenarios in the documentation. At least until we have something like a
user-configurable warning level.
elog(DEBUG) might be okay, but only with a positive DebugLvl, IMHO.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-07 18:33:38 | Re: Could turn on -O2 in AIX |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-11-07 18:22:19 | Could turn on -O2 in AIX |