On 9/26/16 7:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/26/16 8:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think that it's 100% pointless for get_control_dbstate >> to be worried about transient CRC failures. If writes to pg_control >> aren't atomic then we have problems enormously larger than whether >> "pg_ctl promote" throws an error or not. > > The new code was designed to handle that, but if we think it's not an > issue, then we can simplify it. I'm on it.
How about this? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers