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"));
> plus suitable comment adjustments of course. Haven't tested this yet
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
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|