Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:35 AM
> To: Robert Haas
> Cc: Greg Stark; Simon Riggs; Fujii Masao; Kolb, Harald (NSN -
> DE/Munich); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Czichy, Thoralf
> (NSN - FI/Helsinki)
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster recovery and automatic
> restart suppression
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I see that you've carefully not quoted Greg's remark about
> "mechanism
> > not policy" with which I completely agree.
>
> Mechanism should exist to support useful policy. I don't believe that
> the proposed switch has any real-world usefulness.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
There are some good reasons why a switchover could be an appropriate
means in case the DB is facing troubles. It may be that the root cause
is not the DB itsself, but used resources or other things which are
going crazy and hit the DB first ( we've seen a lot of these
unbelievable things which made us quite sensible for robustness
aspects). Therefore we want to have control on the DB recovery.
If you don't want to see this option as a GUC parameter, would it be
acceptable to have it as a new postmaster cmd line option ?
Regards, Harald Kolb.
