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

Re: Unreliable "pg_ctl -w start" again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unreliable "pg_ctl -w start" again
Date: 2012-01-28 02:51:26
Message-ID: 270.1327719086@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> Looks like complete nonsense to me, if the goal is to behave sanely when
>> postmaster.pid hasn't been created yet.  Where do you think get_pgpid
>> gets the PID from?

> Yes, I understand that get_pgpid() gets the pid from postmaster.pid, which 
> may be the pid of the previous postmaster that did not stop cleanly.
> [ convoluted reasoning about what to do if that's the case ]

I don't see any point in worrying about that case when you can't handle
the basic case that the postmaster hasn't created postmaster.pid yet.
In any case, this does nothing at all to answer the question you posed,
which was how long is it reasonable to wait for the postmaster to
produce a new postmaster.pid file.  We really need to know the PID of
the process we started in order to make any real improvement here.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-28 04:30:34
Subject: Re: Temp file missing during large pgbench data set
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-28 02:38:17
Subject: Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables

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