| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Log the location field before any backtrace |
| Date: | 2020-07-10 02:04:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20200710020324.GI11153@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | kato-sho@fujitsu.com | 2020-07-10 02:07:50 | RE: Performing partition pruning using row value |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-07-10 01:53:00 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |