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

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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