> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But the syslogger process (and maybe others) is *not* supposed to
die.
>
> > Right. But are you saying we actually want to start up a new backend
in
> > a directory where we already have a running syslogger (and maybe
others)
> > processes, just no postmaster?
>
> Not great, maybe, but what it looks to me is that the current system
> guarantees that a postmaster with a syslogger child will never recover
> from a backend-child crash. That's not better.
>
When you say "current system", do you mean PG on Windows?
Jon
