On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> Providing the details of lock wait to the client is good. I fell this
>> message
>> is useful for the cases where User/administrator is trying to perform some
>> SQL operations.
>> I also feel that, adding a GUC variable for these logs to show it to user
>> may not be good. Changing the existing GUC may be better.
> I don't think it would be a good idea to refactor the existing GUC
> (log_lock_waits) to accomplish this.
> There would have to be four states, log only, notice only, both log and
> notice, and neither.  But non-superusers can't be allowed to  change the
> log flag, only the notice flag.  It is probably possible to implement that,
> but it seems complicated both to implement, and to explain/document.  I
> think that adding another GUC is better than greatly complicating an
> existing one.

Yes, I understood. Changing the existing GUC will make it complex.

What do you think of Jim Nasby's idea of making a settable level, rather
> just on or off?

I am not clearly understood, how the settable level works here? Based on
or something, the behavior differs?

The Notification messages are good, If we are going to add this facility
only for lock waits, then
a simple GUC is enough. If we are going to enhance the same for other
messages, then I prefer
something like log_statement GUC to take some input from user and those
messages will be
sent to the user.

Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Reply via email to