On 2020-Mar-10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> 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.
The case I'm worried about is a misconfigured archive_command that
causes the archiver to misbehave (exit with a code other than 0); if
that already doesn't happen, or we can make it not happen, then I'm okay
with the changes to archiver.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
