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
