Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But the syslogger process (and maybe others) is *not* supposed to die.
> Right. But are you saying we actually want to start up a new backend in
> a directory where we already have a running syslogger (and maybe others)
> processes, just no postmaster?
Not great, maybe, but what it looks to me is that the current system
guarantees that a postmaster with a syslogger child will never recover
from a backend-child crash. That's not better.
regards, tom lane
