| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
| Date: | 2001-03-12 01:06:31 |
| Message-ID: | 23422.984359191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
>> sent to a backend if the database system were in fact shutting down.
> But why say the system is shutting down if the backend is shutting down.
> Seems the postmaster should say system shutting down and each backend
> should say it is shutting itself down. The way it is now, don't we get
> a "system shutting down" message for every running backend?
You are failing to consider that the primary audience for this error
message is not the system log, but the clients of the backends. They
are going to see only one message, and they are going to want to know
*why* their backend shut down.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-12 01:08:43 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-12 00:57:10 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |