Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: 2020-12-01 03:11:24
Message-ID: CAGRY4nwOdCqBnzh8BkLJNG5gY-jQvTuV9aJf28W1TOe1yMmqUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 07:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I'd feel better about it if the mechanism had you specify exactly
> one target process, and were restricted to a superuser requestor.

Er, rather. I actually assumed the former was the case already, not
having looked closely yet.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Krunal Bauskar 2020-12-01 03:25:27 Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-12-01 03:06:48 Re: BUG #16663: DROP INDEX did not free up disk space: idle connection hold file marked as deleted