Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: 2021-11-18 16:22:44
Message-ID: 20211118162243.GL17618@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 08:12:44PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Attached v14 patch has the fixes for the same.

Thanks for updating the patch.

I cleaned up the docs and comments. I think this could be nearly "Ready".

If you like the changes in my "fixup" patch (0002 and 0004), you should be able
to apply my 0002 on top of your 0001. I'm sure it'll cause some conflicts with
your 2nd patch, though...

This doesn't bump the catversion, since that would cause the patch to fail in
cfbot every time another commit updates catversion.

Your 0001 patch allows printing backtraces of autovacuum, but the doc says it's
only for "backends". Should the change to autovacuum.c be moved to the 2nd
patch ? Or, why is autovacuum so special that it should be handled in the
first patch ?

--
Justin

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-function-to-log-the-backtrace-of-the-specified-b.patch text/x-diff 21.7 KB
0002-f.patch text/x-diff 11.5 KB
0003-pg_log_backtrace-support-for-logging-backtrace-of-au.patch text/x-diff 10.4 KB
0004-f.patch text/x-diff 3.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-11-18 16:56:59 Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-18 16:05:04 Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else?