Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52A65240.3020608@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/6/13 7:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-12-06 22:35:21 +0900, MauMau wrote: >> 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 > > Uh. An explanation why you cannot connect to the database hardly seems > like a superflous log message. It is when *you* are not actually trying to connect but rather pg_ctl is (which is one of the use cases here). Arguably 1-3 are inaccurate since they're not really about a backend dying... they occur during the startup phase; you nevereven get a functioning backend. That's a marked difference from other uses of FATAL. -- Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: