Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
