| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker |
| Date: | 2017-04-11 02:11:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20170411021115.GA2868025@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:36:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/9/17 22:40, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Agreed. There are times when starting up degraded beats failing to start,
> > particularly when the failing component has complicated dependencies. In this
> > case, as detailed upthread, this can only fail in response to basic
> > misconfiguration. It's not the kind of thing that will spontaneously fail
> > after a minor upgrade, for example.
>
> If history had been different, we could have implemented, say,
> autovacuum or walreceiver on the background worker framework. I think
> unifying some of that might actually be a future project. Would it be
> OK if these processes just logged a warning and didn't start if there
> was a misconfiguration?
No. I can't think of any background worker so unimportant that I'd want the
warning only. Certainly, then, the ones you list are far too important.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-11 02:18:03 | Re: src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-04-11 02:08:28 | Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade |