On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK. I tested it and it actually works
Gosh, that says a lot about my code quality. I will strive to improve
from actually works to works as expected for future patches.
and I added documentation
suggesting its usage.
! If
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK. I tested it and it actually works
Gosh, that says a lot about my code quality. I will strive to improve
from actually works to works as expected for future patches.
and I added documentation
suggesting
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can go three ways. We can add a boolean GUC to control printing of
the query during a timeout, but that seems like overkill. We can add a
new level for log_min_error_statement that is just above error, but that
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can go three ways. We can add a boolean GUC to control printing of
the query during a timeout, but that seems like overkill. We can add a
new level for log_min_error_statement that is just above error, but that
seems confusing. I
Simon Riggs wrote:
Currently, when we set a statement_timeout and a query runs over that
time there is no log message to say that the statement has timed out. We
do get a message which says
ERROR: canceling query due to user request
and so in the server log it is impossible to tell
pgman wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Currently, when we set a statement_timeout and a query runs over that
time there is no log message to say that the statement has timed out. We
do get a message which says
ERROR: canceling query due to user request
and so in the server log it is
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
I have updated the message to:
errmsg(canceling query due to user request or statement timeout)));
Oops. Did we freeze the message strings already for this release?
Not yet.
I'm not sure I agree with
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't see why printing the query cancel from a timeout is any more
special than a user request for cancel or a simple query error. If
users want statements to be printed on error, they will
configure things
that way, if not, we should not
Alvaro Herrera
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated the message to:
errmsg(canceling query due to user request or
statement timeout)));
Oops. Did we freeze the message strings already for this release?
Not yet.
I'm not sure I agree
Simon Riggs wrote:
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't see why printing the query cancel from a timeout is any more
special than a user request for cancel or a simple query error. If
users want statements to be printed on error, they will
configure things
that way,
Simon Riggs wrote:
Alvaro Herrera
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated the message to:
errmsg(canceling query due to user request or
statement timeout)));
Oops. Did we freeze the message strings already for this release?
Not
Currently, when we set a statement_timeout and a query runs over that
time there is no log message to say that the statement has timed out. We
do get a message which says
ERROR: canceling query due to user request
and so in the server log it is impossible to tell the difference between
a
12 matches
Mail list logo
