On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:33:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> > I think there is no clear agreement here, and no historically consistent >> > behavior. I'm prepared to let it go and cross it off the list of open >> > items. I believe we should keep thinking about it, but it's not >> > something that has to hold up beta. >> >> Agreed, this doesn't seem like a must-fix-for-beta consideration. > > Definitely not a beta blocker, agreed. Would it be okay to release v10 final > with the logical replication launcher soft-failing this way?
I'm not really in favor of making a behavior change here, so it would be fine with me. Obviously people who think the behavior should be changed are more likely to disagree with that idea. Maybe in the long run we should have a command-line option (not a GUC) that's like... postgres --soldier-on-valiently ...and then when that's not supplied we can die but when it is supplied we persist in spite of all failures that are in any way recoverable. However, I think that's really a new development effort, not a cleanup item for v10. I share Tom's concern to the effect that single-user mode is a really awful way to try to recover from failures, so we should avoid decisions that force people into that recovery mode more often. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers