| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake |
| Date: | 2024-02-28 06:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | Zd7Quc2JXdUg2tar@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:26:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 01:39:59PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > So, I'm ok with the new helper too.
>
> If both of you feel strongly about that, I'm OK with introducing
> something like that.
Thanks!
> Now, a routine should be only about waiting on
> pg_stat_activity to report something, as for the logs we already have
> log_contains().
Agree.
> And a test may want one check, but unlikely both.
> Even if both are wanted, it's just a matter of using log_contains()
> and the new routine that does pg_stat_activity lookups.
Yeah, that's also my point of view.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-02-28 06:37:42 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-02-28 06:18:32 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |