Re: elog() proposal

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I think FATALALL is good, because it tells you exactly what is going on,
> > namely the same as FATAL but for all sessions.
> 
> But it isn't the same.  If all backends FATAL'ed at once, that wouldn't
> provoke the postmaster to wipe shared memory and run a WAL recovery
> cycle.

I called it FATALALL because the effect is to have all backends
FATALly terminate.

> What do you think of Karl's suggestion of PANIC?

That is good too.  The FATAL becomes like a process segfault, and PANIC
is like a kernel panic.

I don't have a preference.  I will let you folks duke it out.  :-)
(I guess I lean toward PANIC.  Sounds cooler.  Not sure that is a good
reason.  :-) )

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026