Re: Some code cleanup for pgbench and pg_verifybackup

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some code cleanup for pgbench and pg_verifybackup
Date: 2021-07-27 06:56:01
Message-ID: YP+uAQZRXutljVeV@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 06:36:15AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I do not understand your disagreement. Do you disagree about the expected
> semantics of fatal? Then why provide fatal if it should not be used?
> What is the expected usage of fatal?

I disagree about the fact that pgbench uses pg_log_fatal() in ways
that other binaries don't do. For example, other things use
pg_log_error() followed by an exit(), but not this code. I am not
going to fight hard on that, though.

That's a set of inconsistences I bumped into while plugging in
option_parse_int() within pgbench.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ajin Cherian 2021-07-27 06:59:14 Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress
Previous Message Greg Nancarrow 2021-07-27 06:53:16 Re: Slim down integer formatting