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+7-8
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