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.
