On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:36:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/9/17 22:40, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Agreed. There are times when starting up degraded beats failing to start,
> > particularly when the failing component has complicated dependencies. In this
> > case, as detailed upthread, this can only fail in response to basic
> > misconfiguration. It's not the kind of thing that will spontaneously fail
> > after a minor upgrade, for example.
>
> If history had been different, we could have implemented, say,
> autovacuum or walreceiver on the background worker framework. I think
> unifying some of that might actually be a future project. Would it be
> OK if these processes just logged a warning and didn't start if there
> was a misconfiguration?
No. I can't think of any background worker so unimportant that I'd want the
warning only. Certainly, then, the ones you list are far too important.
