pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 15:22:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210506191406.hwafwkr4gs2vougq@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <CALDaNm1ig4dKFW1658YBH9338Oysc-MT6-YzeKU-ojv87MhhMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20210127170958.vzo33jzmqwhmn7z6@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CALDaNm1uWKn8KGD0q8HqCPhxSUDKWCEW55aidOiJwd+vfaB+gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALj2ACXfXefmdUWiF0twoYEfgJ6Xk4saXctoYyzXtzkjizCdBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALDaNm0aEUNLZeiDAXvPsgm4nFUjUhtfeztGofmVJU--irSD8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALj2ACXybys_tzWeatb9htVTuxKp29VErc6iJQYJBbdBZXv2fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALj2ACUhgagr-nLcte2+61khpO6uxvERvZA28hQpxtTzbz3U2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALDaNm3HHMxUpYYbUFM3=RYBYZjQGgnULxdDrqwaH=DovuYMSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3886673.1612337426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+Tgmoa9jsOD3h3KmkZLTSpZy-oDazZqesKFquCiDBb6mQvppg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20210506191406.hwafwkr4gs2vougq@alap3.anarazel.de>

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-05-06 14:38:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> This point is entirely separate from the question of whether
>>> triggering stack traces at inopportune moments could cause system
>>> malfunctions, but that question is also not to be ignored.

> I think that ship kind of has sailed with
>
> commit 71a8a4f6e36547bb060dbcc961ea9b57420f7190
> Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
> Date:   2019-11-08 15:44:20 -0300
>     Add backtrace support for error reporting

The fact that we have a scarily large surface area for that to
cause problems is not a great argument for making the surface
area even larger.  Also, I don't think v13 has been out long
enough for us to have full confidence that the backtrace behavior
doesn't cause any problems already.

> we allow generating backtraces in all kind of places, including
> e.g. some inside critical sections via backtrace_functions.

If there's an elog call inside a critical section, that seems
like a problem already.  Are you sure that there are any such?

			regards, tom lane





view thread (135+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com, craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
  In-Reply-To: <4175342.1620328922@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox