Subject: Re: Log the location field before any backtrace
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <C8394FF2-0E6D-49D0-8DEE-6155AA8D7065@yesql.se>
 <20200709163138.GA23549@alvherre.pgsql> <20200710020324.GI11153@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <9ca6e1c0-3aed-5cbb-5700-b503831ccdb7@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:36:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200710020324.GI11153@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-07-10 04:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:31:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2020-Jul-09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log
>>>> output. After some practical experience with it, I think the
>>>> order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed
>>>> is wrong.  I propose we put the LOCATION field before the
>>>> BACKTRACE field, not after.  This makes more sense because the
>>>> location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.
>>>
>>> Makes sense, +1
>>
>> Likewise
> 
> +1.

committed

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services