From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time
In-reply-to: <20170626202356.qybnpn5li2ke4ioc@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <18444.1498428798@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAB7nPqTWWBEZ6NN_pbgmU=yn-HZNKGY3nAivvLSuLPe61n1KJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <24992.1498504537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMkU=1xJW8e+CTotojOMBd-yzUvD0e_JZu2xHo=MnuZ4__m7Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <18520.1498508356@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170626202356.qybnpn5li2ke4ioc@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:23:56 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18889.1498508760.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:26:00 -0400
Message-ID: <18890.1498508760@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-06-26 16:19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?

> It'd not be unreasonble to check pg_control first, and only after that
> indicates readyness check via the protocol.

Hm, that's a thought.  The problem here isn't the frequency of checks,
but the log spam.

> Doesn't quite seem like something backpatchable tho.

I didn't back-patch the pg_ctl change anyway, so that's no issue.

			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