On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, at 1:51 PM, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2025-Oct-27, Euler Taveira wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025, at 2:58 PM, Bryan Green wrote: >> > Thanks for even glancing at this. I did not add any regression >> > tests because the output goes to the server log and not the client. >> >> Since Michael said WIN32-specific tests and mentioned log pattern, he is >> referring to TAP tests. You can add src/test/modules/test_backtrace that >> exercises this code path. > > Hmm, are we really sure this is necessary? >
Good question. We are testing an external API. Maybe a test in this thread is enough to convince someone that the code is correct. >> I didn't test your patch but I'm wondering if we could add an >> abstraction here. I mean invent pg_backtrace() and >> pg_backtrace_symbols() that maps to the current functions (Unix-like). > > Do we really need this? I don't think we're going to add support for > backtraces anywhere else any time soon, so this looks premature. What > other programs do you think we have where this would be useful? I have > a really hard time imagining that things like psql and pg_dump would be > improved by having backtrace-reporting support. And if we have a single > place in the code using a facility, then ISTM the platform-specific code > can live there with no damage. > It was just a suggestion; not a requirement. As you said it would avoid rework in the future if or when someone decides to use this code in other parts of the software. I wouldn't propose this change if I knew it was complicated to have a simple and clean abstraction. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
