Hi, On 2020-03-10 19:52:22 +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:48 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > On 2020-Mar-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > > > At Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:34:20 -0700, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > > > wrote in > > > > On 2020-03-10 12:27:25 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > > > That's true, but I have the same concern with Tom. The archive bacame > > > > > too-tightly linked with other processes than actual relation. > > > > > > > > What's the problem here? We have a number of helper processes > > > > (checkpointer, bgwriter) that are attached to shared memory, and it's > > > > not a problem. > > > > > > That theoretically raises the chance of server-crash by a small amount > > > of probability. But, yes, it's absurd to prmise that archiver process > > > crashes. > > > > The case I'm worried about is a misconfigured archive_command that > > causes the archiver to misbehave (exit with a code other than 0); if > > that already doesn't happen, or we can make it not happen, then I'm okay > > with the changes to archiver. > > Any script that gets killed, or that exit with a return code > 127 > would do that.
But just with a FATAL, not with something worse. And the default handling for aux backends accepts exit code 1 (which elog uses for FATAL) as a normal shutdown. Am I missing something here? Greetings, Andres Freund
