| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Frontend error logging style |
| Date: | 2022-02-23 04:06:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20220223040621.az36eqcm24nyxciq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-02-22 22:44:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > What about adding a pg_fatal() that's pg_log_fatal() + exit()? That keeps
> > pg_log_* stuff "log only", but adds something adjacent enough to hopefully
> > reduce future misunderstandings?
>
> I'd be okay with that, except that pg_upgrade already has a pg_fatal
> (because it has its *own* logging system, just in case you thought
> this wasn't enough of a mess yet). I'm in favor of aligning
> pg_upgrade's logging with the rest, but I'd hoped to leave that for
> later. Making the names collide would be bad even as a short-term
> thing, I fear.
I guess we could name pg_upgrade's out of the way...
> I'm not against choosing some name other than pg_log_fatal, but that
> particular suggestion has got conflicts. Got any other ideas?
Maybe pg_fatal_exit(), pg_exit_fatal() or pg_fatal_error()?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-23 04:22:02 | Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-23 03:47:31 | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats |