Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > How specifically would we do that? And what user would choose the > > behavior "start this background worker but don't worry if it doesn't work"? > > Well, if the background worker is auto-prewarm, you'd probably rather > have the database start rather than get unhappy about auto-prewarm > failing. If the background worker is your logical replication > launcher it's a bit more serious, but if you have no subscriptions or > they're not that critical, maybe you don't care. If the background > worker is in charge of telling your failover solution that this node > is up, then starting without it is entirely pointless. > > I would be inclined to leave this alone for now and revisit it for a > future release. I don't feel confident that we really know what the > right thing to do is here.
I think the common case is for modules to be critical: you may not care about it for auto-prewarm, but that seems like a special case. I would put it the other way around: having the load fail is a serious problem unless specifically configured not to be. I'd do as Peter suggests, and perhaps allow the current behavior optionally. In hindsight, the current behavior seems like a mistake. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
