From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: backtrace_on_internal_error |
Date: | 2023-12-05 20:08:22 |
Message-ID: | 956072.1701806902@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 19:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think we should consider unconditionally emitting a backtrace when
>>> an elog() is hit, instead of requiring a GUC.
>> Perhaps this should be a GUC that defaults to LOG or ERROR.
> I can't speak for Nathan, but my reason would be that I'm not in the
> habit to attach a debugger to my program to keep track of state
> progression, but instead use elog() during patch development. I'm not
> super stoked for getting my developmental elog(LOG)-s spammed with
> stack traces, so I'd want to set this at least to ERROR, while in
> production LOG could be fine.
Yeah, I would not be happy either with elog(LOG) suddenly getting
10x more verbose. I think it might be okay to unconditionally do this
when elevel >= ERROR, though.
(At the same time, I don't have a problem with the idea of a GUC
controlling the minimum elevel to cause the report. Other people
might have other use-cases than I do.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-12-05 20:14:23 | Re: Add checks in pg_rewind to abort if backup_label file is present |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-12-05 20:06:10 | Re: backtrace_on_internal_error |