Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pedro Gimeno" <pgsql-003(at)personal(dot)formauri(dot)es>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de>
Subject: Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Date: 2009-10-16 15:32:41
Message-ID: 4AD84BC9020000250002BA8D@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I was envisioning just using PostmasterRandom() (after initializing
> the seed from time(NULL) as we do now). I don't think we need a
> super-wide random number.

Fine with me. Just that and CanAcceptConnections in the response?

It seems like pg_ping (client utility and related postmaster support)
should be a discrete patch. Improvements to pg_ctl and init scripts
would come later, as separate patches?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-10-16 15:48:05 Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-16 15:24:58 Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal