From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
In-reply-to: 
 <CAGRY4nxmyaGs4-o4JSMwsUmqe++y-9zPEmJTeRn5ZOOdNzxi5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALDaNm3ZzmFS-=r7oDUzj7y7BgQv+N06Kqyft6C3xZDoKnk_6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1778088.1606026308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20201201032649.aekv5b5dicvmovf4@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <1361750.1606795285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALDaNm0pUzawA96LjKohn8eF2BSxkZMRvO70M1-bcbhGvznQuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm0DN3TJsSP6PT=maw1KLKvhHwFfOhokUGKprLaiZrU-mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <55526d79-247d-83a1-0961-7d42e0db1870@enterprisedb.com>
 <20210115201011.noomcygirzge43ir@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CALDaNm2wjFrizmy+yvNbedYKxorZBcGYXNMaoPC6zwSaLsmwLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3537.1610828491@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobpOhhm0poFsShjoM=sOxkbzc78f2TdNyZpGz4GSJHh6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <492025.1611078655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZ8XeQVCCqfq826kAr804a1ZnYy46FnQB9r2n_iOofh8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <523589.1611091371@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAGRY4nxmyaGs4-o4JSMwsUmqe++y-9zPEmJTeRn5ZOOdNzxi5w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:42:35 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <799339.1611194209.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:56:49 -0500
Message-ID: <799340.1611194209@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 05:23, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, it also looks like the patch is doing nothing to prevent the
>> backtrace from being sent to the connected client.

> I don't see a good reason to send a bt to a client. Even though these
> backtraces won't be analysing debuginfo and populating args, locals, etc,
> it should still just go to the server log.

Yeah.  That's easier than I was thinking, we just need to
s/LOG/LOG_SERVER_ONLY/.

>> Maybe, given all of these things, we should forget using elog at
>> all and just emit the trace with fprintf(stderr).

> That causes quite a lot of pain with MemoryContextStats() already

True.  Given the changes discussed in the last couple messages, I don't
see any really killer reasons why we can't ship the trace through elog.
We can always try that first, and back off to fprintf if we do find
reasons why it's too unstable.

			regards, tom lane