| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, ah(at)cybertec(dot)at, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |
| Date: | 2020-03-10 12:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20200310124807.GA29194@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Mar-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:34:20 -0700, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in
> > On 2020-03-10 12:27:25 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > That's true, but I have the same concern with Tom. The archive bacame
> > > too-tightly linked with other processes than actual relation.
> >
> > What's the problem here? We have a number of helper processes
> > (checkpointer, bgwriter) that are attached to shared memory, and it's
> > not a problem.
>
> That theoretically raises the chance of server-crash by a small amount
> of probability. But, yes, it's absurd to prmise that archiver process
> crashes.
The case I'm worried about is a misconfigured archive_command that
causes the archiver to misbehave (exit with a code other than 0); if
that already doesn't happen, or we can make it not happen, then I'm okay
with the changes to archiver.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Surafel Temesgen | 2020-03-10 12:58:41 | Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table |
| Previous Message | Filip Janus | 2020-03-10 12:47:14 | Ecpg dependency |