| From: | "Amir Rohan" <amir(dot)rohan(at)mail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #13643: Should a process dying bring postgresql down, or not? |
| Date: | 2015-09-28 22:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | trinity-8b056f19-86b2-48f6-a609-40fd31bdd83c-1443479065555@3capp-mailcom-lxa15 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:53 AM
> From: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> To: "Amir Rohan" <amir(dot)rohan(at)mail(dot)com>
> Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #13643: Should a process dying bring postgresql down, or not?
> > > Well, doing things randomly is unlikely to teach you much ...
> >
> > Well, It can teach you which electric socket will
> > electrocute you when poked with a fork. That's useful data.
>
> If you *learn* which one was it, you weren't doing it randomly but
> systematically trying them all. That's what I wanted to point out.
>
On average, I would have to poke a fork randomly in precisely one socket,
if I payed the bill. But point taken.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jasper | 2015-09-28 23:56:14 | BUG #13648: Old Records disappearing after upgrade from 9.4.1 to 9.4.4 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-09-28 21:53:57 | Re: BUG #13643: Should a process dying bring postgresql down, or not? |