Re: backtrace_on_internal_error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
Date
Msg-id 288640ba-601b-4740-a3a1-9537673dd8b0@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: backtrace_on_internal_error  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Fix copy and paste error (src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c)