On 2023-12-22 20:00, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> My point is that in the vast majority of cases, long lock waits
> indicate a problem that you would like to know about, so the parameter
> should default to "on".
+1.
I always set log_lock_waits=on, so I agree with this.
>> Just a random idea but what if we separated log_lock_waits from
>> deadlock_timeout? Say, it becomes time-valued rather than
>> Boolean-valued, but it has to be >= deadlock_timeout? Because I'd
>> probably be more interested in hearing about a lock wait that was more
>> than say 10 seconds, but I don't necessarily want to wait 10 seconds
>> for the deadlock detector to trigger.
>
> That is an appealing thought, but as far as I know, "log_lock_waits"
> is implemented by the deadlock detector, which is why it is tied to
> "deadlock_timeout". So if we want that, we'd need a separate "live
> lock detector". I don't know if we want to go there.
Personally, I thought it was a good idea to separate log_lock_waits and
deadlock_timeout, but I have not checked how that is implemented.
--
Regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT DATA GROUP CORPORATION
