Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?

From: "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
Date: 2013-12-06 14:12:57
Message-ID: 1B49CB3D75734A7690C7C08E921D9C3E@maumau
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> There was also the idea that this would be driven off SQLSTATE but this
> seems pretty unwieldy to me.

You are referring to this long discussion, don't you?

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19791.1335902957@sss.pgh.pa.us

I've read it before, and liked the SQLSTATE-based approach. It seems like
properly assigned SQLSTATEs can be used as message IDs, and pairs of
SQLSTATE and its user action might be utilized to provide sophisticated
database administration GUI.

That discussion sounds interesting, and I want to take more time to
consider. But what do you think of my original suggestion to easily solve
the current issue? I'd like to remove the current annoying problem first
before spending much time for more excited infrastructure.

Regards
MauMau

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2013-12-06 14:16:35 [patch] Client-only installation on Windows
Previous Message Dr. Andreas Kunert 2013-12-06 13:53:27 Re: Feature request: Logging SSL connections