From: | Terry Hampton <thampton(at)limacorp(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Kill Process ERROR !!! |
Date: | 2003-07-09 16:10:26 |
Message-ID: | 3F0C3E72.7010503@limacorp.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> Please note that this is not necessarily true. If my server has been up a
> while and I stop/restart the postmaster, it may have a fairly high id
> number and it is quite possible that in x number of days time, the
> children will be created with a wrapped pid which is lower than the
> postmasters. Just look for the - switches that make it obvious. In fact,
> this IS currently the case right now on my server:
>
> 13081 ? S 2:30 /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster
> 13082 ? S 0:19 postgres: stats buffer process
> 13083 ? S 0:28 postgres: stats collector process
> 5600 ? S 0:00 postgres: marlowe phone [local] idle
>
> In this case 13081 is my postmaster.
>
Hey Scott,
Thanks for your input !
Of course you're correct here with the possibility
of PID's rolling over - and I considered describing
exactley what you have here in my original email.
My original was getting longer than I anticipated,
so I simply thought to myself "yeah it happens, but
don't add a bunch more explanation, since the
scenario is kinda uncommon".
I should have known better ! This group is too
sharp to let anything slip through :-)
Terry
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mendola Gaetano | 2003-07-09 17:38:32 | Re: Installazione Postgres |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-07-09 15:39:59 | Re: Kill Process ERROR !!! |