On 2022-02-22 22:44:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > What about adding a pg_fatal() that's pg_log_fatal() + exit()? That keeps
> > pg_log_* stuff "log only", but adds something adjacent enough to hopefully
> > reduce future misunderstandings?
>
> I'd be okay with that, except that pg_upgrade already has a pg_fatal
> (because it has its *own* logging system, just in case you thought
> this wasn't enough of a mess yet). I'm in favor of aligning
> pg_upgrade's logging with the rest, but I'd hoped to leave that for
> later. Making the names collide would be bad even as a short-term
> thing, I fear.
I guess we could name pg_upgrade's out of the way...
> I'm not against choosing some name other than pg_log_fatal, but that
> particular suggestion has got conflicts. Got any other ideas?
Maybe pg_fatal_exit(), pg_exit_fatal() or pg_fatal_error()?
