Re: warning message in standby

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 11:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> >> Should I be downgrading Hot Standby breakages to LOG? That will
>> >> certainly help high availability as well.
>> >
>> > If a message is being issued in a non-user-connected session, there
>> > is basically not a lot of point in WARNING or below.  It should either
>> > be LOG, or ERROR/FATAL/PANIC (which are probably all about the same
>> > thing in the startup process...)
>>
>> I think Simon's point here is the same as mine - LOG isn't too high -
>> it's too low.
>
> Yes, *and* how do we decide which this is?
>
> Should I downgrade all of my code to throwing LOGs rather than ERRORs,
> because (following the same argument) doing so would be better for high
> availability? It's not a facetious question.

I would say - definitely not. High availability is all well and good,
but if things are broken under the hood, it's not really so good after
all. We've traditionally put data integrity and system reliability
ahead of (for example) giving some answer to a query, even if it's the
wrong answer.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company