Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection?

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we just need a PostmasterIsAlive check in the per-file loop.

> ...which would mean the archiver would not outlive postmaster in the
> event it crashes...which is exactly the time you want it to keep going.

Postmaster crashes are not a problem in practice; we've been careful to
keep the postmaster doing so little that there's no material risk of it
failing. If the postmaster dies it's almost certainly because someone
killed it, and you really want the child processes to close up shop too.

(If we did want the archiver to keep running, it shouldn't have any
PostmasterIsAlive check at all; I can't see a reason why completing
one iteration of the outer loop is a better time to stop than any
other time.)

regards, tom lane