Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: 2021-01-15 20:10:11
Message-ID: 20210115201011.noomcygirzge43ir@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-01-15 09:53:05 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-08 10:38, vignesh C wrote:
> > I have implemented printing of backtrace based on handling it in
> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. This patch also includes the change to allow
> > getting backtrace of any particular process based on the suggestions.
> > Attached patch has the implementation for the same.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Are we willing to use up a signal for this?

Why is a full signal needed? Seems the procsignal infrastructure should
suffice?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Zhang 2021-01-15 20:10:25 Re: Add table access method as an option to pgbench
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-01-15 19:53:49 Re: jit and explain nontext