Re: elog() proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() proposal
Date: 2002-02-24 16:57:19
Message-ID: 1308.1014569839@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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.

What do you think of Karl's suggestion of PANIC?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-02-24 16:58:35 Re: elog() proposal
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-02-24 16:57:00 Re: elog() proposal