Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:28:02 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX
 CONCURRENTLY wait)
Message-ID: <20201123212802.GA8237@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <129515.1606166429@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > On 2020-Nov-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By the way, it strikes me that you could just do nothing as long as
> >> (log_min_messages > DEBUG1), so you could encapsulate most of the
> >> logic that plays with the lock tag using that.
> 
> > Good idea, done.
> 
> I'm less sure that that's a good idea.  It embeds knowledge here that
> should not exist outside elog.c; moreover, I'm not entirely sure that
> it's even correct, given the nonlinear ranking of log_min_messages.

Well, we already do this in a number of places.  But I can get behind
this:

> Maybe it'd be a good idea to have elog.c expose a new function
> along the lines of "bool message_level_is_interesting(int elevel)"
> to support this and similar future optimizations in a less fragile way.