Horton

Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-01-15T20:10:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2021-01-15 09:53:05 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-08 10:38, vignesh C wrote:
> > I have implemented printing of backtrace based on handling it in
> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. This patch also includes the change to allow
> > getting backtrace of any particular process based on the suggestions.
> > Attached patch has the implementation for the same.
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Are we willing to use up a signal for this?

Why is a full signal needed? Seems the procsignal infrastructure should
suffice?

Commits

  1. Perform apply of large transactions by parallel workers.

  2. Enhance pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() for auxiliary processes.

  3. Allow GRANT on pg_log_backend_memory_contexts().

  4. Move Perl test modules to a better namespace

  5. Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods

  6. Add backtrace support for error reporting