| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)" <harald(dot)kolb(at)nsn(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: | 2009-06-08 20:12:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0906081312o18f746e4qae0d41e2db894be5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I think the proposed don't-restart flag is exceedingly ugly and will not
>> solve any real-world problem.
>
> Agreed.
Hm. I'm not sure I see a solid use case for it -- in my experience you
want to be pretty sure you have a persistent problem before you fail
over.
But I don't really see why it's ugly either. I mean our auto-restart
behaviour is pretty arbitrary. You could just as easily argue we
shouldn't auto-restart and rely on the user to restart the service
like he would any service which crashes.
I would file it under "mechanism not policy" and make it optional. The
user should be able to select what to do when a backend crash is
detected from amongst the various safe options, even if we think some
of the options don't have any use cases we can think of. Someone will
surely think of one at some point. (idly I wonder if cloud
environments where you can have an infinite supply of slaves are such
a use case...)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-08 20:30:57 | Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-06-08 19:02:56 | Re: pg_migrator issue with contrib |