On Dec 17, 2010 8:02 AM, "Craig Ringer" <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > > On 16/12/10 21:01, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Found another problem in it: when running with an older version of > > dbghelp.dll (which I was), it simply didn't work. We need to grab the > > version of dbghelp.dll at runtime and pick which things we're going to > > dump based on that. > > I was about to suggest dropping the fallback loading of the system > dbghelp.dll, and just bundle a suitable version with Pg, then I saw how > big the DLL is. It's 800kb (!!) of code that'll hopefully never get used > on any given system. With a footprint like that, bundling it seems > rather less attractive. > > I think Magnus is right: test the dbghelp.dll version and fall back to > supported features - as far back as XP, anyway; who cares about anything > earlier than that. An updated version can always be put in place by the > user if the built-in one can't produce enough detail.
Did you get a chance to test that it still produced a full dump on your system? > > We use the existance of the "crashdumps" directory as an indication we > > want crashdumps. That's fine when the system is up. But what if we > > crash *in the postmaster before we have done chdir()*? > > > > Should we perhaps instead define a subdirectory of *where the .EXE > > file is*, and dump the file there? ... > Is this going to be a real-world issue? Nah, I'm with tom on the fact that this is probably not. > > It needs to be documented somewhere.Perhaps in "15.8 Platform Specific > > Notes"? That's really about building it, but it might be reasonable > > there anyway? It does hold a number of things today that aren't > > related to building, for other platforms. > > Seems reasonable. I'll put something together there then. /Magnus
