> On 16 Mar 2026, at 12:32, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick review!
>
>> pg_stat_database.sessions_fatal seems to be still incremented, but, probably,
>> we can live with it. But also we can fix it.
>
> We are still doing a fatal disconnect, so it seems appropriate to me?
Makes sense. We must see this activity somewhere. Even establishing connection is
a big deal, let alone TLS handshake.
>
>> Changes to send_message_to_server_log()
>> ...
>> FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY = 23 sits between FATAL (22) and PANIC (24).
>
> I handled these the same way as the existing WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY. We
> can change it, but then we probably should also update the warning
> case.
Ahh, OK.
>
>> Does this assignment have an effect?
>
> No, but that's also true for the other already existing assignment in
> this branch, I think these are mostly there for internal
> bookkeeping/consistency?
OK.
One more nit: errdetail("Empty request, discovery requested?").
Question marks are uncommon in errdetail and errmsg.
I have no more comments about the patch, feel free to flip it to RfC.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
