On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think the proposed don't-restart flag is exceedingly ugly and will not >> solve any real-world problem. > > Agreed.
Hm. I'm not sure I see a solid use case for it -- in my experience you want to be pretty sure you have a persistent problem before you fail over. But I don't really see why it's ugly either. I mean our auto-restart behaviour is pretty arbitrary. You could just as easily argue we shouldn't auto-restart and rely on the user to restart the service like he would any service which crashes. I would file it under "mechanism not policy" and make it optional. The user should be able to select what to do when a backend crash is detected from amongst the various safe options, even if we think some of the options don't have any use cases we can think of. Someone will surely think of one at some point. (idly I wonder if cloud environments where you can have an infinite supply of slaves are such a use case...) -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
