Lamar Owen writes:

> > case when the postmaster does not come down after 60 seconds.  But this is
> > really no problem for the issue at hand because if you do a normal
> > runlevel switch then the postmaster will simply keep running, and during a
> > system shutdown all the backends are going to die anyway.
>
> Only if each and every shutdown script succeeds in its task.  And I have
> to make sure that the RPM's shipping script successfully pulls down the
> system in an orderly fashion -- of course, I don't have to worry about
> the case where a postmaster is going to be started back up if we are in
> system shutdown -- but, as Tom also stated, I can't assume I'm in the
> system's death throes when called with the stop parameter.

Well, if you have something clever you want to do if the postmaster
doesn't come down after an orderly shutdown then please share it.  The
current alternatives are 'leave running' or 'kill -9'.  I know I'd prefer
the former.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

• Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster at 2001-03-06 17:55:54 from Lamar Owen

Responses

• Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster at 2001-03-06 19:07:32 from Lamar Owen

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alfred Perlstein	Date: 2001-03-06 18:22:46
	Subject: Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-03-06 18:18:53
	Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: WAL-based allocation of XIDs is insecur e