Hi, On 2018-07-31 23:20:27 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 26 Jul 2018, at 19:35, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On July 26, 2018 10:03:39 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > > <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> Why can't we do better? > > > > I don't think it's that hard to do better. IIRC I even outlined something > > before the freeze. If not, o certainly can (sketch: use procsignal based > > acknowledgment protocol, using a 64 bit integer. Useful for plenty other > > things). > > Not really arguing for or against, but just to understand the reasoning before > starting hacking. Why do we feel that a restart (intended for safety here) in > this case is a burden on a use-once process? Is it from a usability or > technical point of view? Just want to make sure we are on the same page > before > digging in to not hack on this patch in a direction which isn’t what is > requested.
Having, at some arbitrary seeming point in the middle of enabling checksums to restart the server makes it harder to use and to schedule. The restart is only needed to fix a relatively small issue, and doesn't save that much code. Greetings, Andres Freund
