On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 02:48:29PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 9:06 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Unfortunately, cfbot says that patch can't be applied without conflicts, >> could >> you please post a rebased version and address commentaries from Masahiko? > > Right, it conflicted with 4c703369 and cfdf4dc4. While rebasing on > top of those, I found myself wondering why syncrep.c thinks it needs > special treatment for postmaster death. I don't see any reason why we > shouldn't just use WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, so I've done it like that in > this new version. If you kill -9 the postmaster, I don't see any > reason to think that the existing coding is more correct than simply > exiting immediately.
Hm. This stuff runs under many assumptions, so I think that we should be careful here with any changes as the very recent history has proved (4c70336). If we were to switch WAL senders on postmaster death, I think that this could be a change independent of what is proposed here. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature