From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: psql casts aspersions on server reliability
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZYvqmyQpzSUdtDmtk4Aj94MppDGe9qVJczbPLy4G2Yfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoZYvqmyQpzSUdtDmtk4Aj94MppDGe9qVJczbPLy4G2Yfg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:22:11 -0400"
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:14:41 -0400
Message-ID: <15946.1475068481@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> psql tends to do things like this:
> rhaas=# select * from pg_stat_activity;
> FATAL:  terminating connection due to administrator command
> server closed the connection unexpectedly
>     This probably means the server terminated abnormally
>     before or while processing the request.

> Basically everything psql has to say about this is a lie:

I cannot get terribly excited about this.  What you seem to be proposing
is that psql try to intuit the reason for connection closure from the
last error message it got, but that seems likely to lead to worse lies
than printing a boilerplate message.

I could go along with just dropping the last sentence ("This probably...")
if the last error we got was FATAL level.  I don't find "unexpectedly"
to be problematic here: from the point of view of psql, and probably
of its user, the shutdown *was* unexpected.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers