Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> "Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)" <harald(dot)kolb(at)nsn(dot)com> wrote:
>>> There are some good reasons why a switchover could be an
>>> appropriate means in case the DB is facing troubles. It may be
>>> that the root cause is not the DB itself, but used resources or
>>> other things which are going crazy and hit the DB first
>
>> Would an example of this be that one drive in a RAID has gone bad
>> and the hot spare rebuild has been triggered, leading to poor
>> performance for a while? Is that the sort of issue where you see
>> value?
>
> How would that be connected to a "no restart on crash" setting?
It wouldn't; but I'm trying to better understand the problem the OP is
trying to solve, to see where that leads.
My first reaction on hearing the request was that it might have *some*
use; but in trying to recall any restart where it is what I would have
wanted, I come up dry. I haven't even really come up with a good
hypothetical use case. But I get the feeling the OP has had some
problem this is attempting to address. I'm just not clear what that
is.
-Kevin