On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 11:26:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Right now is probably not a good time to fix this, but it seems like > >>> something that could be improved. I'd be kind of inclined to remove > >>> the pidfile checking business altogether in favor of inspecting the > >>> state in pg_control; or at least do them both in the same place with > >>> the same recovery attempt if we don't like what we see. > > >> Yes, I realize this was inconsistent. It was done this way purely based > >> on how easy it would be to check each item in each place. I am fine > >> with removing the #3 cleanup so we are consistent. We can also add docs > >> to say it should be a "clean" shutdown. > > > How do you want me to handle this, considering it has to be backpatched? > > Well, removing the check entirely is certainly not a good idea. > > I looked at the code briefly and concur that making it work "nicely" isn't > as simple as one could wish; the code you added has some dependencies on > the context it's in, so that moving it elsewhere would require code > duplication or refactoring. Maybe it's not something to try to shoehorn > into v11. We can always improve it later. > > (I'd also say that the weekend before a release wrap is no time > to be committing anything noncritical, so even if you're feeling > motivated to fix it in v11, best to hold off till after the wrap.)
Yeah, I felt that what we have is probably as good as we reasonably could get in the short term. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
