Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So this change would deal nicely with the "peer application on the remote
>> host is suddenly stopped" case, at the price of being not nice about any
>> of the other cases. Not convinced it's a good tradeoff.
> Yes, in the list of failure cases that could trigger this error, the
> one that looks like a problem is to me is when a network interface is
> disabled. It may be a good idea to let users know via the logs that
> something was connected. Could we for example log a WARNING message,
> and not report an error?
It isn't an "error". These conditions get logged at COMMERROR which is
effectively LOG_SERVER_ONLY.
regards, tom lane