| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker |
| Date: | 2017-03-29 19:05:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY13ti6s+MXK0ZosB3nKeYNjAsjnMv10mE7+eaELYivsw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> How specifically would we do that? And what user would choose the
> behavior "start this background worker but don't worry if it doesn't work"?
Well, if the background worker is auto-prewarm, you'd probably rather
have the database start rather than get unhappy about auto-prewarm
failing. If the background worker is your logical replication
launcher it's a bit more serious, but if you have no subscriptions or
they're not that critical, maybe you don't care. If the background
worker is in charge of telling your failover solution that this node
is up, then starting without it is entirely pointless.
I would be inclined to leave this alone for now and revisit it for a
future release. I don't feel confident that we really know what the
right thing to do is here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-29 19:08:06 | Re: [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-29 19:04:50 | Re: Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10 |