On 2018-06-22 08:24:45 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On Thu., 21 Jun. 2018, 19:26 Pavan Deolasee, <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:35:10PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> > I wrote it because I got sick of Assert(false) debugging, and I was > >> chasing > >> > down some "ERROR: 08P01: insufficient data left in message" errors. > >> Then I > >> > got kind of caught up in it... you know how it is. > >> > >> Yes, I know that feeling! I have been using as well the Assert(false) > >> and the upgrade-to-PANIC tricks a couple of times, so being able to get > >> more easily backtraces would be really nice. > >> > >> > > Sometime back I'd suggested an idea to be able to dynamically manage log > > levels for elog messages [1]. > > > > > Huge +1 from me on being able to selectively manage logging on a > module/subsystem, file, or line level. > > I don't think I saw the post. > > Such a thing would obviously make built in backtrace support much more > useful.
I strongly suggest keeping these as separate as possible. Either is useful without the other, and both are nontrivial. Tackling them together imo makes it much more likely to get nowhere.
Totally agree, and it's why I raised this as its own thing.
