Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> It'd be relatively painless to make that happen as part of the
>> deadlock-check timeout function, but that's typically only a one-second
>> delay not a "few seconds".  I think it'd likely be overly chatty.

> Yeah, I wouldn't want one per second.  Do we already track how long
> we've been waiting?

No, because we're *asleep*.  You'd have to add an additional
timeout-interrupt reason.  Plus there's a ton of interesting questions
about what's safe to do from an interrupt service routine.

In fact, I am scandalized to see that someone has inserted a boatload
of elog calls into CheckDeadLock since 8.2 --- that seems entirely
unsafe.  [ checks revision history... ]

2007-03-03 13:46  momjian

        * doc/src/sgml/config.sgml, src/backend/storage/lmgr/deadlock.c,
        src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c, src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,
        src/include/storage/lock.h, src/include/storage/proc.h: Add GUC
        log_lock_waits to log long wait times.
        Simon Riggs

Bruce, Simon, kindly fix this or revert it.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to