| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Chander Ganesan" <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We should Axe /contrib/start-scripts |
| Date: | 2009-08-25 20:11:31 |
| Message-ID: | 2155.1251231091@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Thanks Andrew, Alvaro, and Chander. You've given me some thoughts to
> toss around. Of course, any of these is going to be somewhat more
> complex than using [ pg_ctl -w ]
Yeah. I wonder if we shouldn't expend a bit more effort to make that
way bulletproof. As I mentioned the other day, if there were a way for
pg_ctl to pass down its parent's PID then we could have the postmaster
exclude that as a false match, and then using pg_ctl would be just as
safe as invoking the postmaster directly.
The two ways I can see to do that are to add a command line switch
to the postmaster, or to pass the PID as an environment variable,
say "PG_GRANDPARENT_PID". The latter is a bit uglier but it would
require touching much less code (and documentation).
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-08-25 20:13:24 | Re: We should Axe /contrib/start-scripts |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-08-25 20:03:44 | Re: We should Axe /contrib/start-scripts |