Re: [PATCHES] Deadlock with pg_dump? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Date
Msg-id 200702262010.l1QKAnn15959@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Deadlock with pg_dump?
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 13:34 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand
> > why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent
> > with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log
> > file.
>
> Yeh, LOG would be most appropriate, but thats not possible.
>
> log_min_messages allows only DEBUG5, DEBUG4, DEBUG3, DEBUG2, DEBUG1,
> INFO, NOTICE and WARNING for non-error states.
>
> Possibly DEBUG1?

This highlights a problem we have often had with LOG output where we
also want the query.

I think there are two possible approaches.  First, we could add a new
bitmap value like LOG_STATEMENT to ereport when we want the statement
with the log line:

    ereport (LOG | LOG_STATEMENT, ...)

(or a new LOG_WITH_STATEMENT log level) and a new GUC like
"log_include_statement" that would control the output of statements for
certain GUC parameters, and we document with GUC values it controls.

A simpler idea would be to unconditionally include the query in the
errdetail() of the actual LOG ereport.

This is not the first GUC that has needed this.  We had this issue with
"log_temp_files", which we just added, and the only suggested solution
was to use log_statement = 'all'.  Either of these ideas above would be
useful for this as well.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple Column reordering