Re: PANIC serves too many masters

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PANIC serves too many masters
Date: 2023-11-20 22:48:27
Message-ID: 81a0ae802a2a6ac8ff44ef2138f7a7519a6fab93.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be inclined to keep PANIC with its current meaning, and
> incrementally change call sites where we decide that's not the
> best behavior.  I think those will be a minority, maybe a small
> minority.  (PANIC_EXIT had darn well better be a small minority.)

Is the error level the right way to express what we want to happen? It
seems like what we really want is to decide on the behavior, i.e.
restart or not, and generate core or not. That could be done a
different way, like:

ereport(PANIC,
(errmsg("could not locate a valid checkpoint record"),
errabort(false),errrestart(false)));

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-11-20 22:48:42 Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-11-20 22:29:03 Re: PSQL error: total cell count of XXX exceeded