Log the location field before any backtrace
In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log output.
After some practical experience with it, I think the order in which the
BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed is wrong. I propose we
put the LOCATION field before the BACKTRACE field, not after. This
makes more sense because the location is effectively at the lowest level
of the backtrace.
Patch attached.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachments:
0001-Log-the-location-field-before-any-backtrace.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=0001-Log-the-location-field-before-any-backtrace.patch; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download
From aaf4a8146cf60a5959e50432359fd9972f410e1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:00:34 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Log the location field before any backtrace
This order makes more sense because the location is effectively at the
lowest level of the backtrace.
---
src/backend/utils/error/elog.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c b/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c
index e976201030..e4b717c79a 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c
@@ -2938,13 +2938,6 @@ send_message_to_server_log(ErrorData *edata)
append_with_tabs(&buf, edata->context);
appendStringInfoChar(&buf, '\n');
}
- if (edata->backtrace)
- {
- log_line_prefix(&buf, edata);
- appendStringInfoString(&buf, _("BACKTRACE: "));
- append_with_tabs(&buf, edata->backtrace);
- appendStringInfoChar(&buf, '\n');
- }
if (Log_error_verbosity >= PGERROR_VERBOSE)
{
/* assume no newlines in funcname or filename... */
@@ -2962,6 +2955,13 @@ send_message_to_server_log(ErrorData *edata)
edata->filename, edata->lineno);
}
}
+ if (edata->backtrace)
+ {
+ log_line_prefix(&buf, edata);
+ appendStringInfoString(&buf, _("BACKTRACE: "));
+ append_with_tabs(&buf, edata->backtrace);
+ appendStringInfoChar(&buf, '\n');
+ }
}
/*
--
2.27.0
On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log output. After some practical experience with it, I think the order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed is wrong. I propose we put the LOCATION field before the BACKTRACE field, not after. This makes more sense because the location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.
Makes sense, +1
cheers ./daniel
On 2020-Jul-09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log output. After some practical experience with it, I think the order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed is wrong. I propose we put the LOCATION field before the BACKTRACE field, not after. This makes more sense because the location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.
Makes sense, +1
Likewise
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:31:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jul-09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log
output. After some practical experience with it, I think the
order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed
is wrong. I propose we put the LOCATION field before the
BACKTRACE field, not after. This makes more sense because the
location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.Makes sense, +1
Likewise
+1.
--
MichaelOn 2020-07-10 04:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:31:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jul-09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 9 Jul 2020, at 11:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
In PG13, we added the ability to add backtraces to the log
output. After some practical experience with it, I think the
order in which the BACKTRACE and the LOCATION fields are printed
is wrong. I propose we put the LOCATION field before the
BACKTRACE field, not after. This makes more sense because the
location is effectively at the lowest level of the backtrace.Makes sense, +1
Likewise
+1.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services