Re: backtrace_on_internal_error

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
Date: 2023-12-30 11:11:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19.12.23 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO, we aren't really going to get a massive payoff from this with
> the current backtrace output; it's just not detailed enough. It's
> better than nothing certainly, but to really move the goalposts
> we'd need something approaching gdb's "bt full" output. I wonder
> if it'd be sane to try to auto-invoke gdb. That's just blue sky
> for now, though. In the meantime, I agree with the proposal as it
> stands (that is, auto-backtrace on any XX000 error). We'll soon find
> out whether it's useless, or needs more detail to be really helpful,
> or is just right as it is. Once we have some practical experience
> with it, we can course-correct as needed.

Based on this, I have committed my original patch.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2023-12-30 11:43:39 Fix copy and paste error (src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c)
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2023-12-29 23:49:40 Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs