Re: A modest proposal: let's add PID to assertion failure messages

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A modest proposal: let's add PID to assertion failure messages
Date: 2020-10-04 21:20:01
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJ9V9fYba5oYiPn2QdO4uQUxUcTesMLLHHK4YJ=Gt04Mg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In these days when we run almost all test cases in parallel, it's
> frequently not that easy to tie a "TRAP: ..." message in the log
> to nearby log messages. (The postmaster's subsequent complaint
> often helps, but it could be some distance away in the log; and
> good luck untangling things if more than one Assert failure happens
> concurrently.) We could add a simple bread crumb trail by
> including the process's PID in such messages. Any objections?

+1

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-10-04 22:07:13 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-10-04 21:11:04 Re: Buglets in equivclass.c