On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:29 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> IMO, we aren't really going to get a massive payoff from this with
> the current backtrace output; it's just not detailed enough. It's
> better than nothing certainly, but to really move the goalposts
> we'd need something approaching gdb's "bt full" output. I wonder
> if it'd be sane to try to auto-invoke gdb. That's just blue sky
> for now, though. In the meantime, I agree with the proposal as it
> stands (that is, auto-backtrace on any XX000 error). We'll soon find
> out whether it's useless, or needs more detail to be really helpful,
> or is just right as it is. Once we have some practical experience
> with it, we can course-correct as needed.
That all seems fair to me. I'm more optimistic than you are about
getting something useful out of the current backtrace output, but (1)
I could be wrong, (2) I'd still like to have something better, and (3)
improving the backtrace output is a separate project from including
backtraces more frequently.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
