> 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. > When you say "current system", do you mean PG on Windows? Jon
