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

From: "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "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: 2013-12-08 21:16:25
Message-ID: 3B3968D184E74416962BA7EB9ECB2510@maumau
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
> On the client end the FATAL is pretty logical but in the logs it makes
> it sound like the entire server died. Especially in this day of
> multithreaded servers. I was suggesting that that was the origin of
> the confusion here. Anyone who has seen these messages on the client
> end many times might interpret them correctly in the server logs but
> someone who has only been a DBA, not a database user might never have
> seen them except in the server logs and without the context might not
> realize that FATAL is a term of art peculiar to Postgres.

I think so, too.
My customers and colleagues, who are relatively new to PostgreSQL, asked
like "Is this FATAL message a sign of some problem? What does it mean?" I
think it's natural to show concern when finding FATAL messages. I find it
unnatural for a normal administration operation to emit a FATAL message.

Regards
MauMau

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2013-12-08 21:33:39 Possible work-around for 9.1 partial vacuum bug?
Previous Message Greg Stark 2013-12-08 21:15:09 Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good