Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Date
Msg-id 16441.1172868905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I can create a global variable to control this, but the new elog level
> seemed cleaner.

What I don't like about the proposed patch is that it's nonorthogonal.
I see no reason to suppose that LOG is the only possible elevel for
which it might be interesting to suppress the STATEMENT: field.

Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport
auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag
in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT.
This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(),
but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Next
From: Jeremy Drake
Date:
Subject: cosmetic patch to large object regression test