Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date
Msg-id 25443.1536678921@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:54 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Please explain why you think that would be with no restart.

> Because the startup process will die, and if that happens, IIRC,
> there's no crash-and-restart loop.  You're just done.

Unless we think that the startup process will never never ever throw
an error, that might be a behavior that needs discussion in itself.

Obviously an infinite crash-and-restart loop would be bad, but
perhaps the postmaster could have logic that would allow restarting
the startup process some small number of times.  I think the hard
part would be in deciding whether a previous restart had succeeded
(ie made progress beyond the prior crash point), so that it should
no longer count against the retry limit.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Next
From: Arthur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().