On 22 June 2018 at 08:48, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2018-06-22 08:24:45 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On Thu., 21 Jun. 2018, 19:26 Pavan Deolasee, <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:35:10PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > >> > I wrote it because I got sick of Assert(false) debugging, and I was > > >> chasing > > >> > down some "ERROR: 08P01: insufficient data left in message" errors. > > >> Then I > > >> > got kind of caught up in it... you know how it is. > > >> > > >> Yes, I know that feeling! I have been using as well the Assert(false) > > >> and the upgrade-to-PANIC tricks a couple of times, so being able to > get > > >> more easily backtraces would be really nice. > > >> > > >> > > > Sometime back I'd suggested an idea to be able to dynamically manage > log > > > levels for elog messages [1]. > > > > > > > > > Huge +1 from me on being able to selectively manage logging on a > > module/subsystem, file, or line level. > > > > I don't think I saw the post. > > > > Such a thing would obviously make built in backtrace support much more > > useful. > > I strongly suggest keeping these as separate as possible. Either is > useful without the other, and both are nontrivial. Tackling them > together imo makes it much more likely to get nowhere. > > Totally agree, and it's why I raised this as its own thing.
Thanks. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
