On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:36:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/9/17 22:40, Noah Misch wrote: > > Agreed. There are times when starting up degraded beats failing to start, > > particularly when the failing component has complicated dependencies. In > > this > > case, as detailed upthread, this can only fail in response to basic > > misconfiguration. It's not the kind of thing that will spontaneously fail > > after a minor upgrade, for example. > > If history had been different, we could have implemented, say, > autovacuum or walreceiver on the background worker framework. I think > unifying some of that might actually be a future project. Would it be > OK if these processes just logged a warning and didn't start if there > was a misconfiguration?
No. I can't think of any background worker so unimportant that I'd want the warning only. Certainly, then, the ones you list are far too important. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
