Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: 2021-11-12 11:45:22
Message-ID: CALj2ACUFD-CW4n+Piu8pq9TYs1keAz_ga5C-6ZbjWrUGZ1GCMQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:14 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, the attached v10 patch has the fixes for the same.

Thanks for the patches. Here are some comments:

1) In the docs, let's have the similar description of
pg_log_backend_memory_contexts for pg_print_backtrace, just for the
continuity in the users readability.

2) I don't know how the <screen> part looks like in the Server
Signaling Functions table. I think here you can just say, it will emit
a warning and return false if not supported by the installation. And
you can give the <screen> part after the description where you are
showing a sample backtrace.

+ capture backtrace. If not available, the function will return false
+ and a warning is issued, for example:
+<screen>
+WARNING: backtrace generation is not supported by this installation
+ pg_print_backtrace
+--------------------
+ f
+</screen>
+ </para></entry>
+ </row>

3) Replace '!' with '.'.
+ * Note: this is called within a signal handler! All we can do is set

4) It is not only the next CFI but also the process specific interrupt
handlers (in your 0002 patch) right?
+ * a flag that will cause the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to invoke

5) I think you need to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO, mostly the committer
will take care of it but just in case.

6) Be consistent with casing "Verify" and "Might"
+# Verify that log output gets to the file
+# might need to retry if logging collector process is slow...

Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-11-12 12:41:12 Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2021-11-12 10:39:31 Re: Allow users to choose what happens when recovery target is not reached