Re: elog levels for _redo failures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: elog levels for _redo failures
Date
Msg-id 13103.1195588019@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to elog levels for _redo failures  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: elog levels for _redo failures  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I notice that there is some variation in the way that different rmgrs
> use elog levels.

> Heap uses PANIC always
> BTree uses LOG and PANIC
> GIN uses ERROR always
> GIST uses ERROR always

> Is there a particular reason or benefit for this much variation in the
> code paths for each rmgr? Why do the log levels vary?

There really isn't any difference between ERROR and PANIC in this
context: any error is going to result in startup failure (cf. elog.c's
behavior when there is no exception catcher).  I think that the older rmgr
code may have been written using PANIC to make it more obvious that that
would happen, but it doesn't matter.  Not sure if there's much point in
trying to standardize.

The stuff that is LOG should perhaps be reduced to DEBUG1 --- I doubt
that it has any non-debugging purpose.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplifying Text Search
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: elog levels for _redo failures