Re: Augmenting the deadlock message with application_name

2024-05-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 08:10:58PM +, Karoline Pauls wrote: > On Friday, 10 May 2024 at 20:17, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > > > > log_line_prefix supports application name --- why would you not use > > that? > > > > log_line_prefix is effective in the server log. This change is mostly > about impr

Re: Augmenting the deadlock message with application_name

2024-05-10 Thread Tom Lane
Karoline Pauls writes: > On Friday, 10 May 2024 at 20:17, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> log_line_prefix supports application name --- why would you not use >> that? > log_line_prefix is effective in the server log. This change is mostly about > improving the message sent back to the client. While the

Re: Augmenting the deadlock message with application_name

2024-05-10 Thread Karoline Pauls
On Friday, 10 May 2024 at 20:17, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > log_line_prefix supports application name --- why would you not use > that? > log_line_prefix is effective in the server log. This change is mostly about improving the message sent back to the client. While the server log is also changed

Re: Augmenting the deadlock message with application_name

2024-05-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 11:44:03PM +, Karoline Pauls wrote: > As we know, the deadlock error message isn't the most friendly one. All the > client gets back is process PIDs, transaction IDs, and lock types. You have to > check the server log to retrieve lock details. This is tedious. > > In on