Thread: A modest proposal: let's add PID to assertion failure messages
In these days when we run almost all test cases in parallel, it's
frequently not that easy to tie a "TRAP: ..." message in the log
to nearby log messages. (The postmaster's subsequent complaint
often helps, but it could be some distance away in the log; and
good luck untangling things if more than one Assert failure happens
concurrently.) We could add a simple bread crumb trail by
including the process's PID in such messages. Any objections?
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > In these days when we run almost all test cases in parallel, it's > frequently not that easy to tie a "TRAP: ..." message in the log > to nearby log messages. (The postmaster's subsequent complaint > often helps, but it could be some distance away in the log; and > good luck untangling things if more than one Assert failure happens > concurrently.) We could add a simple bread crumb trail by > including the process's PID in such messages. Any objections? +1
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:20:01AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> In these days when we run almost all test cases in parallel, it's >> frequently not that easy to tie a "TRAP: ..." message in the log >> to nearby log messages. (The postmaster's subsequent complaint >> often helps, but it could be some distance away in the log; and >> good luck untangling things if more than one Assert failure happens >> concurrently.) We could add a simple bread crumb trail by >> including the process's PID in such messages. Any objections? > > +1 +1. (log_line_prefix includes %p in its default configuration for the TAP tests). -- Michael
Attachment
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> +1. (log_line_prefix includes %p in its default configuration for the
> TAP tests).
Right, but of course you don't get log_line_prefix on Assert messages.
regards, tom lane
On 2020-10-05 10:20:01 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > In these days when we run almost all test cases in parallel, it's > > frequently not that easy to tie a "TRAP: ..." message in the log > > to nearby log messages. (The postmaster's subsequent complaint > > often helps, but it could be some distance away in the log; and > > good luck untangling things if more than one Assert failure happens > > concurrently.) We could add a simple bread crumb trail by > > including the process's PID in such messages. Any objections? > > +1 +1