On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 15:51, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> What is the relationship of these changes with the recently added
> backtrace_on_internal_error?
I think that's a reasonable question. And the follow up ones too.
I think it all depends on how close we consider
backtrace_on_internal_error and backtrace_functions. While they
obviously have similar functionality, I feel like
backtrace_on_internal_error is probably a function that we'd want to
turn on by default in the future. While backtrace_functions seems like
it's mostly useful for developers. (i.e. the current grouping of
backtrace_on_internal_error under DEVELOPER_OPTIONS seems wrong to me)
> shouldn't backtrace_functions_min_level also affect
> backtrace_on_internal_error?
I guess that depends on the default behaviour that we want. Would we
want warnings with ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR to be backtraced by default
or not. There is at least one example of such a warning in the
codebase:
ereport(WARNING,
errcode(ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR),
errmsg_internal("could not parse XML declaration in stored value"),
errdetail_for_xml_code(res_code));
> Btw., your code/documentation sometimes writes "stack trace". Let's
> stick to backtrace for consistency.
Fixed that in the latest patset in the email I sent right before this one.
