| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log the location field before any backtrace |
| Date: | 2020-07-10 06:36:07 |
| Message-ID: | 9ca6e1c0-3aed-5cbb-5700-b503831ccdb7@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-07-10 04:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:31:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2020-Jul-09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log
>>>> output. After some practical experience with it, I think the
>>>> order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed
>>>> is wrong. I propose we put the LOCATION field before the
>>>> BACKTRACE field, not after. This makes more sense because the
>>>> location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.
>>>
>>> Makes sense, +1
>>
>> Likewise
>
> +1.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2020-07-10 06:55:47 | Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-07-10 06:35:40 | Re: SQL-standard function body |