On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 11:26:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Right now is probably not a good time to fix this, but it seems like
> >>> something that could be improved. I'd be kind of inclined to remove
> >>> the pidfile checking business altogether in favor of inspecting the
> >>> state in pg_control; or at least do them both in the same place with
> >>> the same recovery attempt if we don't like what we see.
>
> >> Yes, I realize this was inconsistent. It was done this way purely based
> >> on how easy it would be to check each item in each place. I am fine
> >> with removing the #3 cleanup so we are consistent. We can also add docs
> >> to say it should be a "clean" shutdown.
>
> > How do you want me to handle this, considering it has to be backpatched?
>
> Well, removing the check entirely is certainly not a good idea.
>
> I looked at the code briefly and concur that making it work "nicely" isn't
> as simple as one could wish; the code you added has some dependencies on
> the context it's in, so that moving it elsewhere would require code
> duplication or refactoring. Maybe it's not something to try to shoehorn
> into v11. We can always improve it later.
>
> (I'd also say that the weekend before a release wrap is no time
> to be committing anything noncritical, so even if you're feeling
> motivated to fix it in v11, best to hold off till after the wrap.)
Yeah, I felt that what we have is probably as good as we reasonably
could get in the short term.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +