Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Of course, this is a complete kluge --- it assumes the postmaster
> will create its pidfile in less than two seconds. And for that
> matter, it's not very proof against the case of a pre-existing
> postmaster. But in any case, it (intentionally) doesn't wait for
> the postmaster to be ready to accept connections, so it's not
> solving Kevin's problem.
Ah, well, it seems I don't have to spend a lot of time in close review
of that script. Thanks Tom.
To be a little more explicit, we're counting on the LSB dependencies
to make sure that things start and stop in the right order, and wait
until the time is right. (It seemed pointless to re-invent that wheel
when Linux would do all the work of tracking dependencies and ordering
things correctly if we just emit a meaningful exit code from each
Any thoughts on a best approach or a TODO item?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-08-25 20:16:34|
|Subject: Re: We should Axe /contrib/start-scripts|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-08-25 20:11:31|
|Subject: Re: We should Axe /contrib/start-scripts |