| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-03-09 19:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | 8668.1583780663@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm worried that we're causing all processes to terminate when an
>> archiver dies in some ugly way; but in the current coding, it's pretty
>> harmless and we'd just start a new one. I think this needs to be
>> reconsidered. As far as I know, pgarchiver remains unconnected to
>> shared memory so a crash-restart cycle is not necessary. We should
>> continue to just log the error message and move on.
> Why is it worth having the archiver be "robust" that way?
I'd ask a different question: what the heck is this patchset doing
touching the archiver in the first place? I can see no plausible
reason for that doing anything related to stats collection. If we
now need some new background processing for stats, let's make a
new postmaster child process to do that, not overload the archiver
with unrelated responsibilities.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-09 19:25:39 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-09 18:59:35 | Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode |