On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 19:43 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
Attached is a very quick hack of a patch to do this.

Does anyone have any feedback on this approach? If people are satisfied with this solution, I can get a cleaned up patch ready to apply shortly.

I'm really still opposed to the entire concept. You're proposing to put
a lot of fragile-looking code into a seldom-exercised error path.
I fear bugs will survive a long time in there, and the net effect will be that we get no information when we need it most. The numeric printouts
may be ugly, but they are reliable.

If we're that worried about test coverage for deadlocks, what about adding a test to the regression tests? IIRC the framework can coordinate between multiple connections now...
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to