Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers