Andres Freund <> writes:
> On 2017-06-26 16:19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?

> It'd not be unreasonble to check pg_control first, and only after that
> indicates readyness check via the protocol.

Hm, that's a thought.  The problem here isn't the frequency of checks,
but the log spam.

> Doesn't quite seem like something backpatchable tho.

I didn't back-patch the pg_ctl change anyway, so that's no issue.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to