Re: backtrace_on_internal_error

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 19:59:46
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobgc1T2n0DDcqA4vwQf77UC=PxUkXLPouRXOcYkREhnJA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:47 PM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Similarly, there are probably extensions that do not use ereport()
> directly, but instead use elog(), because of reasons like 'not
> planning on doing translations' and 'elog() is the easier API'.
> Forcing a change over to ereport because of stack trace spam in logs
> caused by elog would be quite annoying.

That does seem like a fair complaint. But I also think it would be
really good if we had something that could be enabled unconditionally
instead of via a GUC... because if it's gated by aa GUC then it often
won't be there when you need it.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-12-05 20:03:58 Re: Possible segfault when sending notification within a ProcessUtility hook
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-12-05 19:58:08 Re: CREATE FUNCTION ... SEARCH { DEFAULT | SYSTEM | SESSION }