Greg Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> 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.
> 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.
Yeah, and when you do fail over you want more guarantee than "none at
all" that the primary won't start back up again on its own.
> But I don't really see why it's ugly either.
Because it's intentionally blowing a hole in one of the most prized
properties of the database, ie, that it doesn't go down if it can help
it. I want a *WHOLE* lot stronger rationale than "somebody might want
it someday" before providing a switch that lets somebody thoughtlessly
break a property we've sweated blood for ten years to ensure.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
