On 2017-06-26 16:26:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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
