On 2017-06-26 16:26:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Right. I think to deal with hot-standby we'd probably have to add new state to the control file however. We don't just want to treat the server as ready once DB_IN_PRODUCTION is reached. Arguably we could and should improve the logic when the server has started, right now it's pretty messy because we never treat a standby as up if hot_standby is disabled... - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
