On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 12:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample, > 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.
'twas me. Looking at it now. Good news is the semantics are exactly what Stephen has requested... -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
