Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)" <harald(dot)kolb(at)nsn(dot)com>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Czichy, Thoralf (NSN - FI/Helsinki)" <thoralf(dot)czichy(at)nsn(dot)com>
Subject: Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression
Date: 2009-06-09 19:20:21
Message-ID: 26113.1244575221@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)" <harald(dot)kolb(at)nsn(dot)com> writes:
> If you don't want to see this option as a GUC parameter, would it be
> acceptable to have it as a new postmaster cmd line option ?

That would make two kluges, not one (we don't do options that are
settable in only one way). And it does nothing whatever to address
my objection to the concept.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-06-09 19:21:56 Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression
Previous Message Floris Bos / Maxnet 2009-06-09 19:14:56 Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2