Re: errbacktrace
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: errbacktrace |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRDG3tCD5k+r2D5Y++fc7aR3LQUQF-3EA6XJhkGtJgXyzA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: errbacktrace (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: errbacktrace
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
so I agree with unconditionally defining that symbol.
Nitpicking dept: I think in these tests:
+ if (!edata->backtrace &&
+ edata->funcname &&
+ backtrace_function[0] &&
+ strcmp(backtrace_function, edata->funcname) == 0)
+ set_backtrace(edata, 2);
If I understand well, backtrace is displayed only when edata->funcname is same like backtrace_function GUC. Isn't it too strong limit?
For example, I want to see backtrace for all PANIC level errors on production, and I would not to limit the source function?
Regards
Pavel
we should test for backtrace_function[0] before edata->funcname, since
it seems more likely to be unset.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: