From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker |
Date: | 2017-03-24 04:20:31 |
Message-ID: | e9ae7eca-d8cd-00a5-26be-ad2ec1647259@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/15/17 12:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If RegisterBackgroundWorker() (the non-dynamic kind that is only
>> loadable from shared_preload_libraries) fails to register the worker, it
>> writes a log message and proceeds, ignoring the registration request. I
>> think that is a mistake, it should be a hard error. The only way in
>> practice to fix the problem is to change shared_preload_libraries or
>> max_worker_processes, both requiring a restart anyway, so proceeding
>> without the worker is not useful.
>
> I guess the question is whether people will prefer to have the
> database start up and be missing the worker, or to have it not start.
> As you point out, the former is likely to result in an eventual
> restart, but the latter may lead to a longer period of downtime RIGHT
> NOW. People tend to really hate things that make the database not
> start, so I'm not sure what's best here.
Any other thoughts on this? Seems like a potential usability issue.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-24 04:27:29 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-03-24 04:20:28 | Re: pageinspect and hash indexes |