On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 04:46:04PM +0300, Marina Polyakova wrote:
> > +1 from me to keep initial name "pgbench_error". "pgbench_log" for new
> > function looks nice to me. I think it is better than just "log",
> > because "log" may conflict with natural logarithmic function (see "man 3
> > log").
>
> Do you think that pgbench_log (or another whose name speaks only about
> logging) will look good, for example, with FATAL? Because this means that
> the logging function also processes errors and calls exit(1) if necessary..
Yes, why not. "_log" just means that you want to log some message with
the specified log level. Moreover those messages sometimes aren't error:
pgbench_error(LOG, "starting vacuum...");
> > I agree with Fabien. Calling pgbench_error() inside pgbench_error()
> > could be dangerous. I think "fmt" checking could be removed, or we may
> > use Assert()
>
> I would like not to use Assert in this case because IIUC they are mostly
> used for testing.
I'd vote to remove this check at all. I don't see any place where it is
possible to call pgbench_error() passing empty "fmt".
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company