| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Frontend error logging style |
| Date: | 2021-11-15 19:45:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2147861.1637005511@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Several programs wrap, say, pg_log_fatal() into a pg_fatal(), that does
> logging, cleanup, and exit, as the case may be. I think that's a good
> solution.
I agree, and my draft patch formalized that by turning pg_log_fatal into
exactly that.
The question that I think is relevant here is what is the point of
labeling errors as "error:" or "fatal:" if we're not going to make any
serious attempt to make that distinction meaningful. I'm not really
buying your argument that it's fine as-is. Anybody who thinks that
there's a difference is going to be very confused by the behavior they
observe. But, if we all know there's no difference, why have the
difference?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-15 19:48:48 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-11-15 19:42:51 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |