Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F6AC34E7D674EB0BACCFAA343910A5B@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from
server log?
Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@ymail.com> It seems to be a fairly common term of art for a problem which requires a restart or reconnection. FATAL is used when the problem is severe enough that the process or connection must end. It seems to me to be what should consistently be used when a client connection or its process must be terminated for a reason other than a client-side request to terminate. What do you think of #5 and #6 when matching the above criteria? 5. FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command 6. FATAL: terminating background worker \"%s\" due to administrator command These are output when the DBA shuts down the database server and there's no client connection. That is, these don't meet the criteria. I believe these should be suppressed, or use LOG instead of FATAL. Regards MauMau
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: