Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Regarding hooks or events, I think postmaster should be kept simple:
>> launch at start, reset at crash recovery, kill at stop.
>
> This is exactly why I think the whole proposal is a nonstarter.  It is
> necessarily pushing more complexity into the postmaster, which means
> an overall reduction in system reliability.

I was under the illusion that having a separate "supervisor" process
child of postmaster to care about the user daemons would protect
postmaster itself. At least the only thing it'd have to do is start a
new child. Then let it care.

How much that would give us as far as postmaster reliability is concerned?
-- 
dim