> As is_log_level_output() returns false against FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY, so that > FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY should not reach send_message_to_server_log(). Should we > assert edata->elevel != FATAL_CLIENT_ONLY?
Andrey asked the same question upthread, this mirrors how WARNING_CLIENT_ONLY is implemented. > As far as I understand, for a programmer error, Assert should be used. Why do > we use elog(ERROR) here? +1, I would also say that for CheckSASLAuth, specifying abandoned is always required, since the caller can't know when it will result in an error. So the assert/if should be at the beginning of the function, not in the error path. Or instead: + /* + * "Abandoned" is a SASL-specific state similar to STATUS_EOF, in that we + * don't want to generate any server logs. But it's caused by an in-band + * client action that requires a server response, not an out-of-band + * connection closure, so we can't just proc_exit() like we do with + * STATUS_EOF. + */ + bool abandoned = false; + Have you considered adding the error level here instead, the same way as in auth_failed, explicitly defaulted to normal fatal by the caller, so existing code don't have to change it? That wouldn't need an SASL-specific explanation or flag in the generic code.
