Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date
Msg-id CAGRY4nwOdCqBnzh8BkLJNG5gY-jQvTuV9aJf28W1TOe1yMmqUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 07:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

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