On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:14 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v10 patch has the fixes for the same.
>
> Thanks for the patches. Here are some comments:
>
> 1) In the docs, let's have the similar description of
> pg_log_backend_memory_contexts for pg_print_backtrace, just for the
> continuity in the users readability.
>
> 2) I don't know how the <screen> part looks like in the Server
> Signaling Functions table. I think here you can just say, it will emit
> a warning and return false if not supported by the installation. And
> you can give the <screen> part after the description where you are
> showing a sample backtrace.
>
> + capture backtrace. If not available, the function will return false
> + and a warning is issued, for example:
> +<screen>
> +WARNING: backtrace generation is not supported by this installation
> + pg_print_backtrace
> +--------------------
> + f
> +</screen>
> + </para></entry>
> + </row>
>
> 3) Replace '!' with '.'.
> + * Note: this is called within a signal handler! All we can do is set
>
> 4) It is not only the next CFI but also the process specific interrupt
> handlers (in your 0002 patch) right?
> + * a flag that will cause the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to invoke
>
> 5) I think you need to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO, mostly the committer
> will take care of it but just in case.
>
> 6) Be consistent with casing "Verify" and "Might"
> +# Verify that log output gets to the file
> +# might need to retry if logging collector process is slow...
Few more comments:
7) Do we need TAP tests for this function? I think it is sufficient to
test the function in misc_functions.sql, please remove
002_print_backtrace_validation.pl. Note that we don't do similar TAP
testing for pg_log_backend_memory_contexts as well.
8) I hope you have manually tested the pg_print_backtrace for the
startup process and other auxiliary processes.
9) I think we can have a similar description (to the patch [1]). with
links to each process definition in the glossary so that it will be
easier for the users to follow the links and know what each process
is. Especially, I didn't like the 0002 mentioned about the
BackendPidGetProc or AuxiliaryPidGetProc as these are internal to the
server and the users don't care about them.
- * end on its own first and its backtrace are not logged is not a problem.
+ * BackendPidGetProc or AuxiliaryPidGetProc returns NULL if the pid isn't
+ * valid; but by the time we reach kill(), a process for which we get a
+ * valid proc here might have terminated on its own. There's no way to
+ * acquire a lock on an arbitrary process to prevent that. But since this
+ * mechanism is usually used to debug a backend running and consuming lots
+ * of CPU cycles, that it might end on its own first and its backtrace are
+ * not logged is not a problem.
*/
Here's what I have written in the other patch [1], if okay please use this:
+ Requests to log memory contexts of the backend or the
+ <glossterm linkend="glossary-wal-sender">WAL sender</glossterm> or
+ the <glossterm linkend="glossary-auxiliary-proc">auxiliary
process</glossterm>
+ with the specified process ID. All of the
+ <glossterm linkend="glossary-auxiliary-proc">auxiliary
processes</glossterm>
+ are supported except the <glossterm
linkend="glossary-logger">logger</glossterm>
+ and the <glossterm
linkend="glossary-stats-collector">statistics collector</glossterm>
+ as they are not connected to shared memory the function can
not make requests.
+ These memory contexts will be logged at
<literal>LOG</literal> message level.
+ They will appear in the server log based on the log configuration set
(See <xref linkend="runtime-config-logging"/> for more information),
I have no further comments on v10.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACU1nBzpacOK2q%3Da65S_4%2BOaz_rLTsU1Ri0gf7YUmnmhfQ%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
