Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Questions about pid file creation code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Questions about pid file creation code
Date: 2007-04-03 17:40:56
Message-ID: 10197.1175622056@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The start script does not typically have the intelligence to get this
>> right, particularly not the is-shmem-still-in-use part.  If you check
>> the archives you will find many of us on record telling people who think
>> they should remove the pidfile in their start script that they're crazy.

> It is true, but question is what way is better. Keep all logic in 
> postmaster or improve pg_ctl to share more information and keep 
> responsibility on start scripts or monitoring tool which has more 
> information about system as complex.

If you have conditions PG doesn't know about, you're free to test for
them in your start script.  I see no reason to change this code, however.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 17:45:42
Subject: Re: notification payloads
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2007-04-03 17:37:27
Subject: Re: Synchronized Scan benchmark results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group