From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [15] Custom WAL resource managers, single user mode, and recovery
In-reply-to: <20220715033215.7dubjyp4tbl3zkot@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <9decc18a42634f8a2f15c97a385a0f51a752f396.camel@j-davis.com>
 <3192874.1657846137@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220715033215.7dubjyp4tbl3zkot@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:32:15 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3228526.1657856576.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 23:42:56 -0400
Message-ID: <3228527.1657856576@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3228527.1657856576%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-07-14 20:48:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (I wonder if we shouldn't refactor this so that the postmaster
>> and standalone mode share more of the initialization logic.
>> Keeping these bits in sync seems unlikely to happen otherwise.)

> Yes, that might be worthwhile. OTOH, I wonder if we should spend that ti=
me to
> remove single user mode instead - the architectural complexity really do=
esn't
> seem worth it anymore, and IMO my prototype from a few months back showe=
d that
> it's feasible.

I dunno ... if your DB is in bad enough shape that you need to resort
to single-user mode, you probably don't want any more moving parts
in the system than you absolutely have to have.  Autovacuum, custom
background workers, and the like are going to be counterproductive.

			regards, tom lane