| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
| Date: | 2021-01-16 20:21:31 |
| Message-ID: | 3537.1610828491@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Why is a full signal needed? Seems the procsignal infrastructure should
>> suffice?
> Most of the processes have access to ProcSignal, for these processes
> printing of callstack signal was handled by using ProcSignal. Pgstat
> process & syslogger process do not have access to ProcSignal,
> multiplexing with SIGUSR1 is not possible for these processes. So I
> handled the printing of callstack for pgstat process & syslogger using
> the SIGUSR2 signal.
I'd argue that backtraces for those processes aren't really essential,
and indeed that trying to make the syslogger report its own backtrace
is damn dangerous.
(Personally, I think this whole patch fails the safety-vs-usefulness
tradeoff, but I expect I'll get shouted down.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-01-16 21:11:09 | Re: Outdated replication protocol error? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-16 20:18:46 | Re: trailing junk in numeric literals |