At Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:34:20 -0700, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote in
> On 2020-03-10 12:27:25 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > That's true, but I have the same concern with Tom. The archive bacame
> > too-tightly linked with other processes than actual relation.
>
> What's the problem here? We have a number of helper processes
> (checkpointer, bgwriter) that are attached to shared memory, and it's
> not a problem.
That theoretically raises the chance of server-crash by a small amount
of probability. But, yes, it's absurd to prmise that archiver process
crashes.
> > We may need the second static shared memory segment apart from the
> > current one.
>
> That seems absurd to me. Solving a non-problem by introducing complex
> new infrastructure.
Ok. I think I must be worrying too much.
Thanks for the suggestion.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
