Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error
Date
Msg-id 20190617124348.GF18917@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error  (Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: pg_log_fatal vs pg_log_error
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:19:30PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> I'd expect that the pg_log_fatal() should be called when the error is serious
> enough to cause premature exit, but I can see cases where even pg_log_error()
> is followed by exit(1). pg_waldump makes me feel that pg_log_error() is used
> to handle incorrect user input (before the actual execution started) while
> pg_log_fatal() handles error conditions that user does not fully control
> (things that happen during the actual execution). But this is rather a guess.

I agree with what you say when pg_log_fatal should be used for an
error bad enough that the binary should exit immediately.  In the case
of pg_waldump, not using pg_log_fatal() makes the code more readable
because there is no need to repeat the "Try --help for more
information on a bad argument".  Have you spotted other areas of the
code where it makes sense to change a pg_log_error() + exit to a
single pg_log_fatal()?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
Next
From: Paul Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Batch insert in CTAS/MatView code