From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [RFC] Shouldn't we remove annoying FATAL messages from server log? |
Date: | 2013-12-06 23:52:04 |
Message-ID: | FDE77A6745884B769A477374AFF586F4@maumau |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> There is no enthusiasm for a quick-hack solution here, and most people
> don't actually agree with your proposal that these errors should never
> get logged. So no, that is not happening. You can hack your local
> copy that way if you like of course, but it's not getting committed.
Oh, I may have misunderstood your previous comments. I got the impression
that you and others regard those messages (except "too many clients") as
unnecessary in server log.
1. FATAL: the database system is starting up
2. FATAL: the database system is shutting down
3. FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode
5. FATAL: terminating walreceiver process due to administrator command
6. FATAL: terminating background worker \"%s\" due to administrator command
Could you tell me why these are necessary in server log? I guess like this.
Am I correct?
* #1 through #3 are necessary for the DBA to investigate and explain to the
end user why he cannot connect to the database.
* #4 and #5 are unnecessary for the DBA. I can't find out any reason why
these are useful for the DBA.
Regards
MauMau
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MauMau | 2013-12-07 00:06:27 | Recovery to backup point |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2013-12-06 23:32:41 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |