Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17881.1558714137@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2019-05-24 11:34:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, after some digging in the archives, the closest thing I can find >> is this thread: >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMsr%2BYGL%2ByfWE%3DJvbUbnpWtrRZNey7hJ07%2BzT4bYJdVp4Szdrg%40mail.gmail.com >> where we discussed using libunwind instead, but people didn't like >> the extra dependency. > Hm, I didn't actually see that much concern about that. I still think we > should just go for libunwind. Is it actually better? The basic problem with backtrace() is that it only knows about global functions, and so reports call sites in static functions as if they were in whatever global function physically precedes the static one. I think doing materially better requires depending on debug symbols, which (at least in the Red Hat world) aren't going to be there in a typical production situation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: