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

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
Date: 2013-12-07 13:58:11
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOR92cAqL6VgvvsPqo2mcERbumpQMzfB5+ncTsQbTsnOA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:27 AM, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. FATAL: the database system is starting up
>
> How about altering the message to tone down the severity by a half-step...
>
> FATAL: (probably) not! - the database system is starting up

Well it is fatal, the backend for that client doesn't continue.

FATAL means a backend died. It is kind of vague how FATAL and PANIC
differ. They both sound like the end of the world. If you read FATAL
thinking it means the whole service is quitting -- ie what PANIC means
-- then these sound like they're noise.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Johnston 2013-12-07 15:53:08 Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-12-07 13:16:26 Re: [PATCH 1/2] SSL: GUC option to prefer server cipher order