From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql casts aspersions on server reliability
In-reply-to: <ZV6Yvb5mu5VDRkfl@momjian.us>
References: <CA+TgmoZYvqmyQpzSUdtDmtk4Aj94MppDGe9qVJczbPLy4G2Yfg@mail.gmail.com> <15946.1475068481@sss.pgh.pa.us> <ZV6Yvb5mu5VDRkfl@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:11:41 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2543634.1700699932.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:38:52 -0500
Message-ID: <2543635.1700699932@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2543635.1700699932%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:14:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> I looked at this thread from 2016 and I think the problem is the
> "abnormally" word, since if the server was shutdown by the administrator
> (most likely), it isn't abnormal.  Here is a patch to remove
> "abnormally".

I do not think this is an improvement.  The places you are changing
are reacting to a connection closure.  *If* we had previously gotten a
"FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command" message,
then yeah the connection closure is expected; but if not, it isn't.
Your patch adds no check for that.  (As I remarked in 2016, we could
probably condition this on the elevel being FATAL, rather than
checking for specific error messages.)

			regards, tom lane