> As is_log_level_output() returns false against FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY, so that FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY should not reach
send_message_to_server_log().Should we assert edata->elevel != FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY?
Andrey asked the same question upthread, this mirrors how
WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY is implemented.
> As far as I understand, for a programmer error, Assert should be used. Why do we use elog(ERROR) here?
+1, I would also say that for CheckSASLAuth, specifying abandoned is
always required, since the caller can't know when it will result in an
error. So the assert/if should be at the beginning of the function,
not in the error path.
Or instead:
+ /*
+ * "Abandoned" is a SASL-specific state similar to STATUS_EOF, in that we
+ * don't want to generate any server logs. But it's caused by an in-band
+ * client action that requires a server response, not an out-of-band
+ * connection closure, so we can't just proc_exit() like we do with
+ * STATUS_EOF.
+ */
+ bool abandoned = false;
+
Have you considered adding the error level here instead, the same way
as in auth_failed, explicitly defaulted to normal fatal by the caller,
so existing code don't have to change it? That wouldn't need an
SASL-specific explanation or flag in the generic code.
