On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think saner behavior might only require this change:
>
> /*
> * Any unexpected exit (including FATAL exit) of the startup
> * process is treated as a crash, except that we don't want to
> * reinitia
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's a bit disturbing that nobody has reported this from the field yet.
> Seems to imply that hot standby isn't being used much.
I have seen this, but didn't get to dig in, as I thought it could be a
problem from other things done outside Postgres
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I'm currently working with Duncan Rance's test case for bug #6425, and
>> I am observing a very nasty behavior in HEAD: once one of the
>> hot-standby query backends crashes, the standby postmaster SIGQUIT's
>> all its children and then
I wrote:
> I'm currently working with Duncan Rance's test case for bug #6425, and
> I am observing a very nasty behavior in HEAD: once one of the
> hot-standby query backends crashes, the standby postmaster SIGQUIT's
> all its children and then just quits itself, with no log message and
> apparentl
I'm currently working with Duncan Rance's test case for bug #6425, and
I am observing a very nasty behavior in HEAD: once one of the
hot-standby query backends crashes, the standby postmaster SIGQUIT's
all its children and then just quits itself, with no log message and
apparently no effort to rest
