| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
| Date: | 2013-12-11 16:48:23 |
| Message-ID: | 17518.1386780503@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree that #1-#3 are of course reasonable when there's any client the user
> runs. The problem is that #1 (The database system is starting up) is output
> in the server log by pg_ctl. In that case, there's no client the user is
> responsible for. Why does a new DBA have to be worried about that FATAL
> message? He didn't do anything wrong.
FATAL doesn't mean "the DBA did something wrong". It means "we terminated
a client session".
The fundamental problem IMO is that you want to complicate the definition
of what these things mean as a substitute for DBAs learning something
about Postgres. That seems like a fool's errand from here. They're going
to have to learn what FATAL means sooner or later, and making it more
complicated just raises the height of that barrier.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-12-11 17:00:05 | Re: pgsql: Fix a couple of bugs in MultiXactId freezing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-11 16:28:33 | Re: Why the buildfarm is all pink |