On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:06 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2022/01/24 16:35, torikoshia wrote: > > On 2022-01-14 19:48, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:50 AM Bharath Rupireddy > >> <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:07 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > The Attached v15 patch has the fixes for the same. > >>> > >>> Thanks. The v15 patch LGTM and the cf bot is happy hence marking it as > >>> RfC. > >> > >> The patch was not applying because of the recent commit [1]. I took > >> this opportunity and tried a bunch of things without modifying the > >> core logic of the pg_log_backtrace feature that Vignesh has worked on. > > I have one question about this feature. When the PID of auxiliary process > like archiver is specified, probably the function always reports the same > result, doesn't it? Because, for example, the archiver always logs its > backtrace in HandlePgArchInterrupts().
It can be either from HandlePgArchInterrupts in pgarch_MainLoop or from HandlePgArchInterrupts in pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop, since the archiver functionality is mainly in these functions. Regards, Vignesh
