| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging |
| Date: | 2026-03-17 06:18:37 |
| Message-ID: | 3C65F5BC-6981-4503-823E-4DBF2F703CF6@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 17, 2026, at 13:29, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> As is_log_level_output() returns false against FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY, so that FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY should not reach send_message_to_server_log(). Should we assert edata->elevel != FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY?
>
> Andrey asked the same question upthread, this mirrors how
> WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY is implemented.
>
Do you mean that we do the same as WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY in this patch, and use a separate patch to fix them together?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-03-17 06:21:18 | Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage |
| Previous Message | yangboyu | 2026-03-17 06:17:57 | bogus pg_init_privs.initprivs in pg_upgrade |