Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
Date
Msg-id hzicr3kidnmwbcqwmwortldzq4fijrfca7c3prncoepgt6rpwf@uydrxvi7qhpk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:22:32AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:25 AM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is potentially a bit of a wild idea, but I wonder if having some
> > kind of argument to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() signifying we're in
> > "normal" as opposed to "critical" (using that word differently than
> > the existing critical sections) would be worth it.
>
> It's worth considering, but the definition of "normal" vs. "critical"
> might be hard to pin down. Or, we might end up with a definition that
> is specific to this particular case and not generalizable to others.

But it doesn't have to be all or nothing right?  I mean each call could say
what the situation is like in their context, like
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(GUARANTEE_NO_HEAVYWEIGHT_LOCK | GUARANTEE_WHATEVER), and
slowly tag calls as needed, similarly to how we add already CFI based on users
report.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Relation bulk write facility