Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1675A9C1CA974304B12A94FE0C5CA949@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from
server log?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > No. They are FATAL so far as the individual session is concerned. > Possibly some documentation effort is needed here, but I don't think > any change in the code behavior would be an improvement. You are suggesting that we should add a note like "Don't worry about the following message. This is a result of normal connectivity checking", don't you? FATAL: the database system is starting up But I doubt most users would recognize such notes. Anyway, lots of such messages certainly make monitoring and troubleshooting harder, because valuable messages are buried. >> 4. FATAL: sorry, too many clients already >> Report these as FATAL to the client because the client wants to know the >> reason. But don't output them to server log because they are not >> necessary >> for DBAs (4 is subtle.) > > The notion that a DBA should not be allowed to find out how often #4 is > happening is insane. I thought someone would point out so. You are right, #4 is a strong hint for the DBA about max_connection setting or connection pool configuration. Regards MauMau
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: