Horton

Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-05-06T19:22:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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

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