Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-11-15T06:23:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:34 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the comments, the attached v12 patch has the changes for the same. > > I have reviewed this patch and have some comments on v12-0001, > > 1. > + This feature is not supported for the postmaster, logger, checkpointer, > + walwriter, background writer or statistics collector process. This > > > Comment says it is not supported for postmaster, logger, checkpointer > etc, but I just tried and it is working for checkpointer and walwriter > processes, can you explain in comments why do we not want to support > for these processes? or the comment is old and now we are supporting > for some of these processes. Please see the v12-0002 which will have the description modified. > 2. > postgres[64154]=# select pg_print_backtrace(64136); > WARNING: 01000: PID 64136 is not a PostgreSQL server process > LOCATION: pg_print_backtrace, signalfuncs.c:335 > pg_print_backtrace > -------------------- > f > > > For postmaster I am getting this WARNING "PID 64136 is not a > PostgreSQL server process", even if we don't want to support this > process I don't think this message is good. This is a generic message that is coming from pg_signal_backend, not related to Vignesh's patch. I agree with you that emitting a "not postgres server process" for the postmaster process which is the main "postgres process" doesn't sound sensible. Please see there's already a thread [1] and see the v1 patch [2] for changing this message. Please let me know if you want me to revive that stalled thread? [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACW7Rr-R7mBcBQiXWPp%3DJV5chajjTdudLiF5YcpW-BmHhg%40mail.gmail.com [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUGxedgYk-5nO8D2EJV2YHXnoycp_oqYAxDXTODhWkmkg%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
Commits
-
Perform apply of large transactions by parallel workers.
- 216a784829c2 16.0 cited
-
Enhance pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() for auxiliary processes.
- 790fbda90209 15.0 cited
-
Allow GRANT on pg_log_backend_memory_contexts().
- f0b051e322d5 15.0 cited
-
Move Perl test modules to a better namespace
- b3b4d8e68ae8 15.0 cited
-
Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods
- 201a76183e20 15.0 cited
-
Add backtrace support for error reporting
- 71a8a4f6e365 13.0 cited