| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: standalone backend PANICs during recovery |
| Date: | 2016-08-22 00:19:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSjo42sjLx-c8P2Rj5C1Sayrx=xWnp_vfTe=BVOB7QOeA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So at this point I'm pretty baffled as to what the actual use-case is
> here.
It is easier to attach a debugger in this case to analyze the problem?
> I am tempted to say that a standalone backend should refuse to
> start at all if a recovery.conf file is present. If we do want to
> allow the case, we need some careful thought about what it should do.
+1 for preventing an instance in --single mode to start if
recovery.conf is present. It is better to put safeguards than getting
unwanted behaviors.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2016-08-22 01:05:44 | Re: New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-22 00:00:42 | Re: SP-GiST support for inet datatypes |