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

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date
Msg-id CAGRY4nx4aiamrVaNNSdsCGxF6THaOBgGowWEOh1sgXsW3a7MzQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 00:56, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for your comments Andres, I will ignore it for the processes
which do not have access to ProcSignal. I will make the changes and
post a patch for this soon.

I think that's sensible.

I've had variable results with glibc's backtrace(), especially on older platforms and/or with external debuginfo, but it's much better than nothing. It's often not feasible to get someone to install gdb and run commands on their production systems - they can be isolated and firewalled or hobbled by painful change policies. Something basic built-in to postgres, even if basic, is likely to come in very handy.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: fdatasync(2) on macOS
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit