Re: PANIC serves too many masters - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: PANIC serves too many masters
Date
Msg-id 81a0ae802a2a6ac8ff44ef2138f7a7519a6fab93.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PANIC serves too many masters  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PANIC serves too many masters
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be inclined to keep PANIC with its current meaning, and
> incrementally change call sites where we decide that's not the
> best behavior.  I think those will be a minority, maybe a small
> minority.  (PANIC_EXIT had darn well better be a small minority.)

Is the error level the right way to express what we want to happen? It
seems like what we really want is to decide on the behavior, i.e.
restart or not, and generate core or not. That could be done a
different way, like:

  ereport(PANIC,
          (errmsg("could not locate a valid checkpoint record"),
           errabort(false),errrestart(false)));

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PSQL error: total cell count of XXX exceeded
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown