Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17338.1172875053@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > One idea I had was to set the high-bit of elevel to control whether we > want to suppress statement logging, but I think errprintstmt() might be > best. I don't understand the ereport stack well enough to add this > functionality, though. What should I look for? It wouldn't really be any different from errcode(), but if you want I'll do it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: