At Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:34:20 -0700, Andres Freund <and...@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. > > We may need the second static shared memory segment apart from the > > current one. > > That seems absurd to me. Solving a non-problem by introducing complex > new infrastructure. Ok. I think I must be worrying too much. Thanks for the suggestion. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
