Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5A120D22826D49839B1C7104B899EC37@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? (David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server
log?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "David Johnston" <polobo@yahoo.com> >> 5. FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command >> 6. FATAL: terminating background worker \"%s\" due to administrator >> command > 5 and 6: I don't fully understand when they would happen but likely fall > into the same "the DBA should know what is going on with their server and > confirm any startup/shutdown activity it is involved with". > > They might be better categorized "NOTICE" level if they were in response > to > a administrator action, versus in response to a crashed process, but even > for the user-initiated situation making sure they hit the log but using > FATAL is totally understandable and IMO desirable. #5 is output when the DBA shuts down the replication standby server. #6 is output when the DBA shuts down the server if he is using any custom background worker. These messages are always output. What I'm seeing as a problem is that FATAL messages are output in a normal situation, which worries the DBA, and those messages don't help the DBA with anything. They merely worry the DBA. Regards MauMau
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: