On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think we just need a PostmasterIsAlive check in the per-file loop. > > > ...which would mean the archiver would not outlive postmaster in the > > event it crashes...which is exactly the time you want it to keep going. > > Postmaster crashes are not a problem in practice; we've been careful to > keep the postmaster doing so little that there's no material risk of it > failing. If the postmaster dies it's almost certainly because someone > killed it, and you really want the child processes to close up shop too. > > (If we did want the archiver to keep running, it shouldn't have any > PostmasterIsAlive check at all; I can't see a reason why completing > one iteration of the outer loop is a better time to stop than any > other time.)
This does at least solve the fast restart problem, so look on -patches in a few minutes. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
