On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > Yes it will be really helpful to know the earlier reason for "not making > backend exit on postmaster death". > Please let me know if there is any thread, which I can refer to find the > same. > > IMHO there could be below major issues, if we don't kill client backend > process on postmaster death: > 1. Postmaster cannot be re-started again as pointed by Kyotaro and Andres > Also. > 2. If from existing client session, we try to do some operation which has > dependency with backend process, then that operation will either fail or > may lead to undefined behavior sometime. > 3. Also unintentionally all operation done by application will not be > checkpointed and also will not be flushed by bgworker. > 4. Replicating of WAL to standby will be stopped and if synchronous > standby is configured then command from master will be hanged. > > What exactly we want to do as part of this proposal? As far as I can see, we have below two options on postmaster death:
a. Exit all the active backends in whichever state they are. b. Exit backend/s after they finish there current work and are waiting for new command. I think what we are discussing here is option-b. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
