"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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-28 04:30:34|
|Subject: Re: Temp file missing during large pgbench data set |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-28 02:38:17|
|Subject: Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |