Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2021-05-06 14:38:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> This point is entirely separate from the question of whether >>> triggering stack traces at inopportune moments could cause system >>> malfunctions, but that question is also not to be ignored. > I think that ship kind of has sailed with > > commit 71a8a4f6e36547bb060dbcc961ea9b57420f7190 > Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> > Date: 2019-11-08 15:44:20 -0300 > Add backtrace support for error reporting The fact that we have a scarily large surface area for that to cause problems is not a great argument for making the surface area even larger. Also, I don't think v13 has been out long enough for us to have full confidence that the backtrace behavior doesn't cause any problems already. > we allow generating backtraces in all kind of places, including > e.g. some inside critical sections via backtrace_functions. If there's an elog call inside a critical section, that seems like a problem already. Are you sure that there are any such? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: