| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: identifying unrecognized node type errors |
| Date: | 2022-03-25 13:53:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3237746.1648216405@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> All these functions are too low level to be helpful to know. Knowing
> the caller might actually give a hint as to where the unknown node
> originated from. We may get that from the stack trace if that's
> available. But if we could annotate the error with error_context that
> will be super helpful.
Is it really that interesting? If function X lacks coverage for
node type Y, then X is what needs to be fixed. The exact call
chain for any particular failure seems of only marginal interest,
certainly not enough to be building vast new infrastructure for.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-25 13:53:57 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-25 13:49:34 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |