Re: PANIC serves too many masters

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PANIC serves too many masters
Date: 2023-11-20 22:55:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Is the error level the right way to express what we want to happen? It
> seems like what we really want is to decide on the behavior, i.e.
> restart or not, and generate core or not. That could be done a
> different way, like:

> ereport(PANIC,
> (errmsg("could not locate a valid checkpoint record"),
> errabort(false),errrestart(false)));

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. It feels to me that
PANIC_EXIT is an error level (even more severe than PANIC).
But maybe "no core dump please" should be conveyed separately,
since it's just a minor adjustment that doesn't fundamentally
change what happens. It's plausible that you'd want a core,
or not want one, for different cases that all seem to require

(Need a better name than PANIC_EXIT. OMIGOD?)

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-11-20 23:35:18 Re: PANIC serves too many masters
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-11-20 22:52:22 Re: Hide exposed impl detail of wchar.c