Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I think FATALALL is good, because it tells you exactly what is going on,
> > namely the same as FATAL but for all sessions.
>
> But it isn't the same. If all backends FATAL'ed at once, that wouldn't
> provoke the postmaster to wipe shared memory and run a WAL recovery
> cycle.
I called it FATALALL because the effect is to have all backends
FATALly terminate.
> What do you think of Karl's suggestion of PANIC?
That is good too. The FATAL becomes like a process segfault, and PANIC
is like a kernel panic.
I don't have a preference. I will let you folks duke it out. :-)
(I guess I lean toward PANIC. Sounds cooler. Not sure that is a good
reason. :-) )
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026