Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 23:34:56
Message-ID: 6116.1244504096@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I see that you've carefully not quoted Greg's remark about "mechanism
> not policy" with which I completely agree.

Mechanism should exist to support useful policy. I don't believe that
the proposed switch has any real-world usefulness.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2009-06-09 00:25:25 Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-06-08 22:06:10 Re: postmaster recovery and automatic restart suppression