Re: Frontend error logging style
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Frontend error logging style |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1003080.1645630202@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Frontend error logging style (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Frontend error logging style
Re: Frontend error logging style |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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). Wait a moment. After looking closer, I realize that pg_upgrade's pg_fatal could trivially be turned into a macro; and the other two existing definitions already are macros. That would remove the risk of link-time symbol collisions that I was worried about. As a bonus, it'd substantially reduce the number of changes needed to make pg_upgrade use logging.c, whenever somebody wants to make that happen. So I now propose modifying yesterday's patch thus: * Reinstantiate the PG_LOG_FATAL enum value, add support macros pg_log_fatal, pg_log_fatal_hint, pg_log_fatal_detail. * Define pg_fatal as pg_log_fatal + exit(1). (This would essentially move pg_rewind's definition into logging.h. pg_upgrade will define it slightly differently, but the semantics end up the same.) * Adjust call sites to match. I do like this idea because it would not break any existing code that expects pg_log_fatal to return. There is likely to be some of that in outstanding patches, and this approach would merely render it less-than-idiomatic rather than outright broken. Updating the patch is going to be a bit tedious, so I'm not going to do it without buy-in that this solution would be okay to commit. Any objections? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: