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
>
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.
> !
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
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:
> >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
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
> >
>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.
>
>
> 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
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 agr
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
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 tel
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
