On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I think saner behavior might only require this change:
>
>            /*
>             * Any unexpected exit (including FATAL exit) of the startup
>             * process is treated as a crash, except that we don't want to
>             * reinitialize.
>             */
>            if (!EXIT_STATUS_0(exitstatus))
>            {
> -               RecoveryError = true;
> +               if (!FatalError)
> +                   RecoveryError = true;
>                HandleChildCrash(pid, exitstatus,
>                                 _("startup process"));
>                continue;
>            }
>
> plus suitable comment adjustments of course.  Haven't tested this yet
> though.

Looks good, will test.

> It's a bit disturbing that nobody has reported this from the field yet.
> Seems to imply that hot standby isn't being used much.

There are many people I know using it in production for more than a year now.

Either they haven't seen it or they haven't reported it to us.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

• Re: Hot standby fails if any backend crashes at 2012-02-03 04:48:46 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2012-02-04 16:11:43
	Subject: Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple
Previous:	From: Kohei KaiGai	Date: 2012-02-04 15:54:30
	Subject: Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks