Re: Add “FOR UPDATE NOWAIT” lock details to the log.
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
Yuki Seino <seinoyu@oss.nttdata.com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-05-30T15:28:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2025/05/30 19:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 14.03.25 16:07, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to update LockAcquireExtended() to >>>>> take a new argument, like logLockFailure, to control whether >>>>> a lock failure should be logged directly? I’ve adjusted the patch >>>>> accordingly and attached it. Please let me know what you think! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> It's very simple and nice. >>>> It seems like it can also handle other lock failure cases by extending logLockFailure. >>>> > I agree with this propose. >>> >>> Thanks for reviewing the patch! >>> >>> I've made some minor cosmetic adjustments. The updated patch is attached. >>> >>> Unless there are any objections, I'll proceed with committing it. >> >> Pushed the patch. Thanks! > > This patch added a setting "log_lock_failure", but the existing similar setting "log_lock_waits" has a plural. Is there a reason for this difference? No, Seino-san and I went with log_lock_failure at the time because we didn't have a better name suggestion, and we figured we could revisit the GUC name later if needed. so thanks for bringing it up again! > Otherwise, maybe "log_lock_failures" would be better. Yes, this seems better for consistency with log_lock_waits. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA Japan Corporation
Commits
-
Rename log_lock_failure GUC to log_lock_failures for consistency.
- 73bdcfab35ec 18.0 landed
-
Add GUC option to log lock acquisition failures.
- 6d376c3b0d1e 18.0 landed
-
Split ProcSleep function into JoinWaitQueue and ProcSleep
- 3c0fd64fec8e 18.0 cited