On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 13:57, Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > On 19/12/2010 7:51 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> Great. I pulled the latest from your git tree, tested that, and got much >>> better results. Crashdump size is back to what I expected. In my test >>> code, >>> fcinfo->args and fcinfo->argnull can be examined without problems. >>> Backtraces look good; see below. It seems to be including backend private >>> memory again now. Thanks _very_ much for your work on this. >> >> Ok, great. I think that leaves us at least complete enough to commit - >> we can always improve things further as we get some more real world >> testing. >> >> >>> fcinfo->flinfo is still inaccessible, but I suspect it's in shared >>> memory, >>> as it's at 0x00000135 . Ditto fcinfo->resultinfo and fcinfo->context. >> >> Hmm. Not sure why those would be in shared memory, that seems strange. > > OK, I'll have to do some more digging on that, then. I'm getting on a plane > in about 2 hours, but will be bringing Visual Studio snapshots, a postgres > git tree, an XP vm, etc with me, so time permitting I should be able to keep > on with this.
Ok. I still think what we have now is a great improvement over nothing. But improvements on top of it is obviously always good :-) >>> Anyway, here's an example of the backtraces I'm currently getting. >>> They're >>> clearly missing some parameters (in shm? Unsure) but provide source >>> file+line, argument values where resolvable, and the call stack its self. >>> Locals are accessible at all levels of the stack when you go poking >>> around >>> in windbg. >> >> Yeah, they're still very useful. Is that a release or debug build? > > That's a release build. I'm intentionally testing with release builds > because I want something that's useful on real-world end-user systems, and > I'm aware that few Windows users will build Pg for themselves. Good - I just wanted to be sure that's what you were testing as well. > (That said, the Perl-based build scripts are some of the least painful build > tools I've ever worked with on Windows. Only CMake can rival them for > low-pain Windows compilation.) :-) Thanks! They're not quite that painless to maintain, but it's not *too* bad. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
