From: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2021-03-05 09:47:52 |
Message-ID: | 93324693b1ac21e4e1b7d4ed40ea3447@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-03-04 21:55, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:43 AM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Since the current patch use BackendPidGetProc(), it does not
>> support this feature not only postmaster, logging, and
>> statistics but also checkpointer, background writer, and
>> walwriter.
>>
>> And when I specify pid of these PostgreSQL processes, it
>> says "PID xxxx is not a PostgreSQL server process".
>>
>> I think it may confuse users, so it might be worth
>> changing messages for those PostgreSQL processes.
>> AuxiliaryPidGetProc() may help to do it.
>
> Exactly this was the doubt I got when I initially reviewed this patch.
> And I felt it should be discussed in a separate thread, you may want
> to update your thoughts there [1].
>
> [1] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACW7Rr-R7mBcBQiXWPp%3DJV5chajjTdudLiF5YcpW-BmHhg%40mail.gmail.com
Thanks!
I'm going to join the discussion there.
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-03-05 09:51:29 | Re: n_mod_since_analyze isn't reset at table truncation |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-03-05 09:35:47 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench: Bug fix for the -d option |