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:

Reply via email to