Hi,
On 2023-11-20 17:55:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
> > Is the error level the right way to express what we want to happen? It
> > seems like what we really want is to decide on the behavior, i.e.
> > restart or not, and generate core or not. That could be done a
> > different
Jeff Davis writes:
> Is the error level the right way to express what we want to happen? It
> seems like what we really want is to decide on the behavior, i.e.
> restart or not, and generate core or not. That could be done a
> different way, like:
> ereport(PANIC,
> (errmsg("could not
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be inclined to keep PANIC with its current meaning, and
> incrementally change call sites where we decide that's not the
> best behavior. I think those will be a minority, maybe a small
> minority. (PANIC_EXIT had darn well better be a smal
Jeff Davis writes:
> On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 14:29 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I don't quite know what we should do. But the current situation
>> decidedly
>> doesn't seem great.
> Agreed.
+1
> Better classification is nice, but it also requires more
> discipline and it might not always be obv
Hi,
On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 14:29 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't quite know what we should do. But the current situation
> decidedly
> doesn't seem great.
Agreed. Better classification is nice, but it also requires more
discipline and it might not always be obvious which category something
f
Hi,
Right now we use PANIC for very different kinds of errors.
Sometimes for errors that are persistent, where crash-restarting and trying
again won't help:
ereport(PANIC,
(errmsg("could not locate a valid checkpoint record")));
or
ereport(PANIC,
(errmsg("online backup was
