| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 00:19:32 |
| Message-ID: | 52A65E14.8060801@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/9/13 5:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
>> Arguably 1-3 are inaccurate since they're not really about a backend dying... they occur during the startup phase; you never even get a functioning backend. That's a marked difference from other uses of FATAL.
>
> How so? "FATAL" means "an error that terminates your session", which
> is exactly what these are.
Except in these cases the user never actually got a working session; their request was denied.
To be clear, from the client standpoint it's certainly fatal, but not from the server's point of view. This is fully expected behavior as far as the server is concerned. (Obviously it might be an error that caused the shutdown/recovery, but that's something different.)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-12-10 00:20:47 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-10 00:17:09 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |