On 18.04.24 09:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:36:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> log_backtrace speaks a bit more to me as a name for this stuff because
>> it logs a backtrace. Now, there is consistency on HEAD as well
>> because these GUCs are all prefixed with "backtrace_". Would
>> something like a backtrace_mode where we have an enum rather than a
>> boolean be better? One thing would be to redesign the existing GUC as
>> having two values on HEAD as of:
>> - "none", to log nothing.
>> - "internal", to log backtraces for internal errors.
>>
>> Then this could be extended with more modes, to discuss in future
>> releases as new features.
>
> As this is an open item, let's move on here.
>
> Attached is a proposal of patch for this open item, switching
> backtrace_on_internal_error to backtrace_mode with two values:
> - "none", to log no backtraces.
> - "internal", to log backtraces for internal errors.
>
> The rest of the proposals had better happen as a v18 discussion, where
> extending this GUC is a benefit.
Why exactly is this an open item? Is there anything wrong with the
existing feature?