Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But the syslogger process (and maybe others) is *not* supposed to die.
> Right. But are you saying we actually want to start up a new backend in
> a directory where we already have a running syslogger (and maybe others)
> processes, just no postmaster?
Not great, maybe, but what it looks to me is that the current system
guarantees that a postmaster with a syslogger child will never recover
from a backend-child crash. That's not better.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
