| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
| Date: | 2013-12-05 15:46:33 |
| Message-ID: | 16175.1386258393@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Shouldn't we lower the severity or avoiding those messages to server log?
No. They are FATAL so far as the individual session is concerned.
Possibly some documentation effort is needed here, but I don't think
any change in the code behavior would be an improvement.
> 1. FATAL: the database system is starting up
> 2. FATAL: the database system is shutting down
> 3. FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode
> 4. FATAL: sorry, too many clients already
> Report these as FATAL to the client because the client wants to know the
> reason. But don't output them to server log because they are not necessary
> for DBAs (4 is subtle.)
The notion that a DBA should not be allowed to find out how often #4 is
happening is insane.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Metin Doslu | 2013-12-05 15:46:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-12-05 15:45:47 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |