Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 19:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think we should consider unconditionally emitting a backtrace when
>>> an elog() is hit, instead of requiring a GUC.
>> Perhaps this should be a GUC that defaults to LOG or ERROR.
> I can't speak for Nathan, but my reason would be that I'm not in the
> habit to attach a debugger to my program to keep track of state
> progression, but instead use elog() during patch development. I'm not
> super stoked for getting my developmental elog(LOG)-s spammed with
> stack traces, so I'd want to set this at least to ERROR, while in
> production LOG could be fine.
Yeah, I would not be happy either with elog(LOG) suddenly getting
10x more verbose. I think it might be okay to unconditionally do this
when elevel >= ERROR, though.
(At the same time, I don't have a problem with the idea of a GUC
controlling the minimum elevel to cause the report. Other people
might have other use-cases than I do.)
regards, tom lane
