I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log file.
So, by default, the INFO is going to go to the user terminal, and not to the logfile. Ideas? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:38 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 22:19 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 18:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > Chris Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Is there additional logging information I can turn on to get more > > > > > > details? I guess I need to see exactly what locks both processes > > > > > > hold, and what queries they were running when the deadlock > > > > > > occurred? > > > > > > Is that easily done, without turning on logging for *all* > > > > > > statements? > > > > > > > > > > log_min_error_statement = error would at least get you the statements > > > > > reporting the deadlocks, though not what they're conflicting against. > > > > > > > > Yeh, we need a much better locking logger for performance analysis. > > > > > > > > We really need to dump the whole wait-for graph for deadlocks, since > > > > this might be more complex than just two statements involved. Deadlocks > > > > ought to be so infrequent that we can afford the log space to do this - > > > > plus if we did this it would likely lead to fewer deadlocks. > > > > > > > > For 8.3 I'd like to have a log_min_duration_lockwait (secs) parameter > > > > that would allow you to dump the wait-for graph for any data-level locks > > > > that wait too long, rather than just those that deadlock. Many > > > > applications experience heavy locking because of lack of holistic > > > > design. That will also show up the need for other utilities to act > > > > CONCURRENTLY, if possible. > > > > > > Old email, but I don't see how our current output is not good enough? > > > > > > test=> lock a; > > > ERROR: deadlock detected > > > DETAIL: Process 6855 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 16394 of > > > database 16384; blocked by process 6795. > > > Process 6795 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 16396 of database > > > 16384; blocked by process 6855. > > > > This detects deadlocks, but it doesn't detect lock waits. > > > > When I wrote that it was previous experience driving me. Recent client > > experience has highlighted the clear need for this. We had a lock wait > > of 50 hours because of an RI check; thats the kind of thing I'd like to > > show up in the logs somewhere. > > > > Lock wait detection can be used to show up synchronisation points that > > have been inadvertently designed into an application, so its a useful > > tool in investigating performance issues. > > > > I have a patch implementing the logging as agreed with Tom, will post to > > patches later tonight. > > Patch for discussion, includes doc entries at top of patch, so its > fairly clear how it works. > > Output is an INFO message, to allow this to trigger > log_min_error_statement when it generates a message, to allow us to see > the SQL statement that is waiting. This allows it to generate a message > prior to the statement completing, which is important because it may not > ever complete, in some cases, so simply logging a list of pids won't > always tell you what the SQL was that was waiting. > > Other approaches are possible... > > Comments? > > -- > Simon Riggs > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > [ Attachment, skipping... ] -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq