Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Regarding hooks or events, I think postmaster should be kept simple: >> launch at start, reset at crash recovery, kill at stop. > > This is exactly why I think the whole proposal is a nonstarter. It is > necessarily pushing more complexity into the postmaster, which means > an overall reduction in system reliability.
I was under the illusion that having a separate "supervisor" process child of postmaster to care about the user daemons would protect postmaster itself. At least the only thing it'd have to do is start a new child. Then let it care. How much that would give us as far as postmaster reliability is concerned? -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
