Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: backtrace_on_internal_error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1266459.1701958930@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: backtrace_on_internal_error (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes: > Something else to note: I wrote the above code to check the error code; > it doesn't check whether the original code write elog() or ereport(). > There are some internal errors that are written as ereport() now. > Others might be changed from time to time; until now there would have > been no external effect from this. I think it would be weird to > introduce a difference between these forms now. Yeah, that was bothering me too. IIRC, elog is already documented as being *exactly equivalent* to ereport with a minimal set of options. I don't think we should break that equivalence. So I agree with driving this off the stated-or-imputed errcode rather than which function is called. > Do people want a way to distinguish ERROR/FATAL/PANIC? > Or do people want a way to enable backtraces for elog(LOG)? Personally I don't see a need for either. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: