Re: pg_ctl non-idempotent behavior change

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl non-idempotent behavior change
Date: 2014-10-11 22:54:32
Message-ID: 20141011225432.GO21267@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 05:07:47PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > After 87306184580c9c49717, if the postmaster dies without cleaning up (i.e.
> > > power outage), running "pg_ctl start" just gives this message and then
> > > exits:
> >
> > > pg_ctl: another server might be running
> >
> > > Under the old behavior, it would try to start the server anyway, and
> > > succeed, then go through recovery and give you back a functional system.
> >
> > > From reading the archive, I can't really tell if this change in behavior
> > > was intentional.
> >
> > Hmm. I rather thought we had agreed not to change the default behavior,
> > but the commit message fairly clearly says that the default behavior is
> > being changed. This case shows that that change was inadequately
> > thought through.
> >
> > > Anyway it seems like a bad thing to me. Now the user has a system that
> > > will not start up, and is given no clue that they need to remove
> > > "postmaster.pid" and try again.
> >
> > Yeah, this is not tolerable. We could think about improving the logic
> > to have a stronger check on whether the old server is really there or
> > not (ie it should be doing something more like pg_ping and less like
> > just checking if the pidfile is there). But given how close we are to
> > beta, maybe the best thing is to revert that change for now and put it
> > back on the to-think-about-for-9.4 list. Peter?
>
> Are we going to unrevert this patch for 9.5?

Seems no one is thinking of restoring this patch and working on the
issue.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-11 22:58:05 Re: Append to a GUC parameter ?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-11 22:51:16 Re: Looked at TODO:Considering improving performance of computing CHAR() value lengths