Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log?

Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/9/13 5:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How so? "FATAL" means "an error that terminates your session", which
>> is exactly what these are.

> Except in these cases the user never actually got a working session; their request was denied.

> To be clear, from the client standpoint it's certainly fatal, but not from the server's point of view. This is fully expected behavior as far as the server is concerned. (Obviously it might be an error that caused the shutdown/recovery, but that's something different.)

Right, but as already pointed out in this thread, these messages are
worded from the client's point of view. "The client never got a working
connection" seems to me to be an empty distinction. If you got SIGTERM'd
before you could issue your first query, should that not be FATAL because
you'd not gotten any work done?

More generally, we also say FATAL for all sorts of entirely routine
connection failures, like wrong password or mistyped user name. People
don't seem to have a problem with those. Even if some do complain,
the costs of changing that behavior after fifteen-years-and-counting
would certainly exceed any benefit.

regards, tom lane