Re: shared-memory based stats collector

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-03-09 15:37:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm worried that we're causing all processes to terminate when an
>> archiver dies in some ugly way; but in the current coding, it's pretty
>> harmless and we'd just start a new one.  I think this needs to be
>> reconsidered.  As far as I know, pgarchiver remains unconnected to
>> shared memory so a crash-restart cycle is not necessary.  We should
>> continue to just log the error message and move on.

> Why is it worth having the archiver be "robust" that way?

I'd ask a different question: what the heck is this patchset doing
touching the archiver in the first place?  I can see no plausible
reason for that doing anything related to stats collection.  If we
now need some new background processing for stats, let's make a
new postmaster child process to do that, not overload the archiver
with unrelated responsibilities.

            regards, tom lane