Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm worried that we're causing all processes to terminate when an
>> archiver dies in some ugly way; but in the current coding, it's pretty
>> harmless and we'd just start a new one. I think this needs to be
>> reconsidered. As far as I know, pgarchiver remains unconnected to
>> shared memory so a crash-restart cycle is not necessary. We should
>> continue to just log the error message and move on.
> Why is it worth having the archiver be "robust" that way?
I'd ask a different question: what the heck is this patchset doing
touching the archiver in the first place? I can see no plausible
reason for that doing anything related to stats collection. If we
now need some new background processing for stats, let's make a
new postmaster child process to do that, not overload the archiver
with unrelated responsibilities.
regards, tom lane
