On 2022-02-22 22:44:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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.
I guess we could name pg_upgrade's out of the way... > I'm not against choosing some name other than pg_log_fatal, but that > particular suggestion has got conflicts. Got any other ideas? Maybe pg_fatal_exit(), pg_exit_fatal() or pg_fatal_error()?
