| From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "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: | 2013-12-11 15:31:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4F6AC34E7D674EB0BACCFAA343910A5B@maumau |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
It seems to be a fairly common term of art for a problem which
requires a restart or reconnection. FATAL is used when the problem
is severe enough that the process or connection must end. It seems
to me to be what should consistently be used when a client
connection or its process must be terminated for a reason other
than a client-side request to terminate.
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
These are output when the DBA shuts down the database server and there's no
client connection. That is, these don't meet the criteria. I believe these
should be suppressed, or use LOG instead of FATAL.
Regards
MauMau
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-11 15:38:33 | Re: Replication Node Identifiers and crashsafe Apply |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-11 15:30:07 | Re: Question about sorting internals |