Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?

From: "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David Johnston" <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
Date: 2013-12-07 12:18:38
Message-ID: ADBE10471765485F9FA67BCD2ABFA0CB@maumau
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: "David Johnston" <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>
> PITR/Failover is not generally that frequent an occurrence but I will
> agree
> that these events are likely common during such.
>
> Maybe PITR/Failover mode can output something in the logs to alleviate
> user
> angst about these frequent events? I'm doubting that a totally separate
> mechanism can be used for this "mode" but instead of looking for things to
> remove how about adding some additional coddling to the logs and the
> beginning and end of the mode change?

Yes, those messages are not output frequently, because they are only output
during planned or unplanned downtime. But frequency does not matter here.
Imagine the DBA's heart. They need to perform maintenance or recovery
operation in a hurry and wish to not encounter any trouble. They would
panic if something goes trouble when he expects to see no trouble. The
"FATAL" messages merely make him worried.

The extra FATAL messages can be a problem for support staff. What do you
feel if the DBA asks you for help when some emergency trouble occurs during
recovery, with a few important messages buried in lots of unnecessary FATAL
ones?

Regards
MauMau

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2013-12-07 12:32:16 Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl fails with config-only directory
Previous Message MauMau 2013-12-07 11:50:48 Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?