Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The traditional theory has been that that would be less robust, not
>> more so. Child backends are (mostly) able to carry out queries whether
>> or not the postmaster is around.
> I think that's the Tom Lane theory. The Robert Haas theory is that if
> the postmaster has died, there's no reason to suppose that it hasn't
> corrupted shared memory on the way down, or that the system isn't
> otherwise heavily fuxxored in some way.
Eh? The postmaster does its level best never to touch shared memory
(after initialization anyway).
>> True, you can't make new connections,
>> but how does killing the existing children make that better?
> It allows you to start a new postmaster in a timely fashion, instead
> of waiting for an idle connection that may not ever terminate without
> operator intervention.
There may be something in that argument, but I find the other one
completely bogus.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
