Re: Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait
Date: 2017-01-17 21:39:30
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYO5KXqY1F0wzwZV9ec1cKn2rS=QcZNDQxuv8R1M1PB4g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/15/17 11:40 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> This change may confuse the users who run "pg_ctl start" to perform a crash
>> recovery, archive recovery and standby server (with hot_standby=off) because
>> "pg_ctl start" would not return so long time.
>
> Well, this change was made because the previous behavior confused people
> as well, because pg_ctl would return before it was actually done.
>
> The new state shouldn't be confusing because pg_ctl prints out progress
> messages.

But what if we're restarting after, say, rebooting? Then there's
nobody to see the progress messages, perhaps. The system just seems
to take an eternity to return to the usual runlevel.

I saw the discussion on this thread, but I didn't realize that it
meant that pg_ctl was going to wait for crash recovery, let alone
archive recovery. That seems not good.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-01-17 21:43:16 Re: Logical Replication WIP
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-01-17 21:35:48 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Generate fmgr prototypes automatically