From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Date: | 2022-04-14 05:03:50 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm0nWBBxECydurhDytY1f8Cr-9o1ekJxmCdp-cPkB-kw6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:29 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:18 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 11:53:52AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > Sadly the cfbot is showing a patch conflict again. It's just a trivial
> > > > conflict in the regression test schedule so I'm not going to update
> > > > the status but it would be good to rebase it so we continue to get
> > > > cfbot testing.
> > >
> > > Done. No changes.
> >
> > + if (chk_auxiliary_proc)
> > + ereport(WARNING,
> > + errmsg("PID %d is not a PostgreSQL server process", pid));
> > + else
> > + ereport(WARNING,
> > + errmsg("PID %d is not a PostgreSQL backend process", pid));
> >
> > This doesn't look right to me. I don't think that PostgreSQL server
> > processes are one kind of thing and PostgreSQL backend processes are
> > another kind of thing. I think they're two terms that are pretty
> > nearly interchangeable, or maybe at best you want to argue that
> > backend processes are some subset of server processes. I don't see
> > this sort of thing adding any clarity.
>
> I have changed it to "PID %d is not a PostgreSQL server process" which
> is similar to the existing warning message in
> pg_log_backend_memory_contexts.
>
> > -static void
> > +void
> > set_backtrace(ErrorData *edata, int num_skip)
> > {
> > StringInfoData errtrace;
> > @@ -978,7 +978,18 @@ set_backtrace(ErrorData *edata, int num_skip)
> > "backtrace generation is not supported by this installation");
> > #endif
> >
> > - edata->backtrace = errtrace.data;
> > + if (edata)
> > + edata->backtrace = errtrace.data;
> > + else
> > + {
> > + /*
> > + * LOG_SERVER_ONLY is used to make sure the backtrace is never
> > + * sent to client. We want to avoid messing up the other client
> > + * session.
> > + */
> > + elog(LOG_SERVER_ONLY, "current backtrace:%s", errtrace.data);
> > + pfree(errtrace.data);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > This looks like a grotty hack.
>
> I have changed it so that the backtrace is set and returned to the
> caller. The caller will take care of logging or setting it to the
> error data context. Thoughts?
>
> > - PGPROC *proc = BackendPidGetProc(pid);
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * BackendPidGetProc returns NULL if the pid isn't valid; but by the time
> > - * we reach kill(), a process for which we get a valid proc here might
> > - * have terminated on its own. There's no way to acquire a lock on an
> > - * arbitrary process to prevent that. But since so far all the callers of
> > - * this mechanism involve some request for ending the process anyway, that
> > - * it might end on its own first is not a problem.
> > - *
> > - * Note that proc will also be NULL if the pid refers to an auxiliary
> > - * process or the postmaster (neither of which can be signaled via
> > - * pg_signal_backend()).
> > - */
> > - if (proc == NULL)
> > - {
> > - /*
> > - * This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not abort
> > - * if one backend terminated on its own during the run.
> > - */
> > - ereport(WARNING,
> > - (errmsg("PID %d is not a PostgreSQL backend process", pid)));
> > + PGPROC *proc;
> >
> > + /* Users can only signal valid backend or an auxiliary process. */
> > + proc = CheckPostgresProcessId(pid, false, NULL);
> > + if (!proc)
> > return SIGNAL_BACKEND_ERROR;
> > - }
> >
> > Incidentally changing the behavior of pg_signal_backend() doesn't seem
> > like a great idea. We can do that as a separate commit, after
> > considering whether documentation changes are needed. But it's not
> > something that should get folded into a commit on another topic.
>
> Agreed. I have kept the logic of pg_signal_backend as it is.
> pg_log_backtrace and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts use the same
> functionality to check and send signal. I have added a new function
> "CheckProcSendDebugSignal" which has the common code implementation
> and will be called by both pg_log_backtrace and
> pg_log_backend_memory_contexts.
>
> > + /*
> > + * BackendPidGetProc() and AuxiliaryPidGetProc() return NULL if the pid
> > + * isn't valid; but by the time we reach kill(), a process for which we
> > + * get a valid proc here might have terminated on its own. There's no way
> > + * to acquire a lock on an arbitrary process to prevent that. But since
> > + * this mechanism is usually used to debug a backend or an auxiliary
> > + * process running and consuming lots of memory, that it might end on its
> > + * own first without logging the requested info is not a problem.
> > + */
> >
> > This comment made a lot more sense where it used to be than it does
> > where it is now. I think more work is required here than just cutting
> > and pasting.
>
> This function was called from pg_signal_backend earlier, this logic is
> now moved to CheckProcSendDebugSignal which will be called only by
> pg_log_backtrace and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts. This looks
> appropriate in CheckProcSendDebugSignal with slight change to specify
> it can consume lots of memory or a long running process.
> Thoughts?
>
> Attached v20 patch has the changes for the same.
The patch was not applying on top of HEAD. Attached patch is a rebased
version on top of HEAD.
Regards,
Vignesh
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v20-0001-Add-function-to-log-the-backtrace-of-the-specifi.patch | text/x-patch | 30.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-04-14 05:50:24 | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |
Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-04-14 03:42:39 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |