Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-06-26 16:19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?
> It'd not be unreasonble to check pg_control first, and only after that
> indicates readyness check via the protocol.
Hm, that's a thought. The problem here isn't the frequency of checks,
but the log spam.
> Doesn't quite seem like something backpatchable tho.
I didn't back-patch the pg_ctl change anyway, so that's no issue.
regards, tom lane