From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
Date: | 2012-05-03 15:39:38 |
Message-ID: | 24564.1336059578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hey, maybe we could add a UUID to each ereport() call site ;-)
> I can't help but feel we're designing a $10.00 solution to a $0.25
> problem. I think I'd actually support adding something like a UUID to
> every ereport and a filtering mechanism that works on that basis. But
> let's face it: this particular message is exponentially more annoying
> than average. We're basically forcing application developers to jump
> through hoops to avoid filling the log with unnecessary chatter. I've
> spent a bunch of time trying to get rid of them in various past jobs,
> and I've never gotten any benefit out of having them. Maybe the
> solution is to just demote that particular message to DEBUG1 and
> declare that closing the connection is a perfectly sensible way for an
> application to indicate that the conversation is over.
I could support that with one tweak: it's only DEBUG1 if you don't
have an open transaction. Dropping the connection while in a
transaction *is* an application bug; I don't care how lazy the app
programmer is feeling.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-03 15:46:06 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 15:34:33 | Re: Torn page hazard in ginRedoUpdateMetapage() |