Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nMiZx-0004vC-S3 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:44:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nMiZv-0006ya-OP for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:44:35 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nMiZv-0006yR-F2 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:44:35 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nMiZs-0002HY-MU for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 03:44:34 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 21N3iPQk941720; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 22:44:25 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Robert Haas , Peter Eisentraut , Michael Paquier , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Frontend error logging style In-reply-to: <20220223031137.grgocasyh7qs2tn3@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <1363732.1636496441@sss.pgh.pa.us> <632f02ed-12ac-b91f-0e99-9c1b086f8cd0@enterprisedb.com> <913687.1645572199@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220223031137.grgocasyh7qs2tn3@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Tue, 22 Feb 2022 19:11:37 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <941718.1645587865.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 22:44:25 -0500 Message-ID: <941719.1645587865@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund 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. Looks like libpq_pipeline.c has its own pg_fatal, too. I'm not against choosing some name other than pg_log_fatal, but that particular suggestion has got conflicts. Got any other ideas? regards, tom lane