Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190617124348.GF18917@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error (Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:19:30PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > I'd expect that the pg_log_fatal() should be called when the error is serious > enough to cause premature exit, but I can see cases where even pg_log_error() > is followed by exit(1). pg_waldump makes me feel that pg_log_error() is used > to handle incorrect user input (before the actual execution started) while > pg_log_fatal() handles error conditions that user does not fully control > (things that happen during the actual execution). But this is rather a guess. I agree with what you say when pg_log_fatal should be used for an error bad enough that the binary should exit immediately. In the case of pg_waldump, not using pg_log_fatal() makes the code more readable because there is no need to repeat the "Try --help for more information on a bad argument". Have you spotted other areas of the code where it makes sense to change a pg_log_error() + exit to a single pg_log_fatal()? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: