MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAN4CZFPim7hUiyb7daNKQPSZ8CvQRBGkVhbvED7yZi8VktSn4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <7DB528BA-C7A0-4B23-890C-5332FB35A16E@yesql.se>
 <CAN4CZFNNfhFCQdFWui5HWbQR60eM-cyndZ7YgSv7b5SKxB9C2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+mDSmh6RNizHRmMAwg4ZP2W=uai3Fr3-wm186NMypf_Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFNJftK8NaREYaLi-wqpEz3=crQ=1+3f_XUVji=aOrDSWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7094F798-8DD1-4974-9A04-10E147B29581@gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+kjtmRMBdBU3_bGKGDoRSK2AErXbGtHkAjFRapcQNmjhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFNWBXtF-ML3yzdOvX3QEuUwVo5VrBzyWU3O=y-7SeDstA@mail.gmail.com>
 <15434512-B3FB-4AB3-B6B3-5D85ED0B4BBE@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAN4CZFNscs=hiOkRJYF39r7AD7ef9+MR+O2BQdEtE_2Ajdo5qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+nVzkoLjzNk_58e0NnUPi9uVXwmurK2QP6CzC2WOpqwbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFPjiUQbKo2q+ovs--AHkjvaE8OJyncB9xu5b+1gp=HHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+=SR_nJJBh7UXZzK8Zbs21L2RUNkW3d9aPRkQOHj1bBPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFO7ju7fjjv+qwObP8_V-Tdx463zV8F7u_s6wtg9ANVWVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+kEYA0Tp2son-+Ti1wvSAPov87AVFf4qXATTOHRX1F2gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFOmym1BaV_U2V56aOyRp2JMrw5nfn6kwcAEcu_RWK-F3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <99C6E80B-8770-41C2-8084-BF3C7F389FFF@yandex-team.ru>
In-Reply-To: <99C6E80B-8770-41C2-8084-BF3C7F389FFF@yandex-team.ru>
From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 07:32:53 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAN4CZFN7u1kX3_0cfyVvtfiWpORxnvZo=xCr9Ag-F5Onp-hpbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>,
 Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN4CZFN7u1kX3_0cfyVvtfiWpORxnvZo%3DxCr9Ag-F5Onp-hpbA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the quick review!

> pg_stat_database.sessions_fatal seems to be still incremented, but, probably,
> we can live with it. But also we can fix it.

We are still doing a fatal disconnect, so it seems appropriate to me?

> Changes to send_message_to_server_log()
> ...
> FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY = 23 sits between FATAL (22) and PANIC (24).

I handled these the same way as the existing WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY. We
can change it, but then we probably should also update the warning
case.

> Does this assignment have an effect?

No, but that's also true for the other already existing assignment in
this branch, I think these are mostly there for internal
bookkeeping/consistency?