Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query - Mailing 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.