On 2018-06-22 08:24:45 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Thu., 21 Jun. 2018, 19:26 Pavan Deolasee, <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:35:10PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> > I wrote it because I got sick of Assert(false) debugging, and I was
> >> chasing
> >> > down some "ERROR: 08P01: insufficient data left in message" errors.
> >> Then I
> >> > got kind of caught up in it... you know how it is.
> >>
> >> Yes, I know that feeling! I have been using as well the Assert(false)
> >> and the upgrade-to-PANIC tricks a couple of times, so being able to get
> >> more easily backtraces would be really nice.
> >>
> >>
> > Sometime back I'd suggested an idea to be able to dynamically manage log
> > levels for elog messages [1].
> >
>
>
> Huge +1 from me on being able to selectively manage logging on a
> module/subsystem, file, or line level.
>
> I don't think I saw the post.
>
> Such a thing would obviously make built in backtrace support much more
> useful.
I strongly suggest keeping these as separate as possible. Either is
useful without the other, and both are nontrivial. Tackling them
together imo makes it much more likely to get nowhere.
- Andres