On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 7:56 PM torikoshia <torikos...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> On 2021-04-01 19:13, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On 2021/03/31 15:16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > >>> + The memory contexts will be logged based on the log configuration > >>> set. For example: > >>> > >>> How do you think? > >> > >> How about "The memory contexts will be logged in the server log" ? > >> I think "server log" doesn't suggest any concrete target. > > > > Or just using "logged" is enough? > > > > Also I'd like to document that one message for each memory context is > > logged. > > So what about the following? > > > > One message for each memory context will be logged. For example, > > > Agreed. > > BTW, there was a conflict since c30f54ad732(Detect POLLHUP/POLLRDHUP > while > running queries), attached v9. > > > Regards, Hi, + * On receipt of this signal, a backend sets the flag in the signal + * handler, and then which causes the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() I think the 'and then' is not needed: handler which causes the next ... + * This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not abort + * if one backend logged its memory contexts during the run. The pid given by arg 0 is not a PostgreSQL server process. Which other backend could it be ? Thanks
