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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
Date: 2013-12-11 15:41:16
Message-ID: 20131211154116.GC25227@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-12-12 00:31:25 +0900, MauMau wrote:
> What do you think of #5 and #6 when matching the above criteria?
>
> 5. FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command
> 6. FATAL: terminating background worker \"%s\" due to administrator command

Those are important if they happen outside a shutdown. So, if you really
want to remove them from there, you'd need to change the signalling to
handle the cases differently.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-12-11 15:41:45 Re: autovacuum_work_mem
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-11 15:38:33 Re: Replication Node Identifiers and crashsafe Apply