Re: set_ps_display on solaris x86

From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: set_ps_display on solaris x86
Date: 2003-02-14 02:31:18
Message-ID: bxysmury4nd.fsf@datafix.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Bruce> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
>> > Sadly, set_ps_display does not seem to have any effect in solaris
>> > x86. At least ps only reports multiple postmaster processes and
>> > arguments.
>>
>> IIRC, you have to use the "other" version of ps to see the process
>> status on Solaris. I forget where it lives exactly, /usr/ucb maybe?

Bruce> Yep, monitoring chapter mentions it:

Thanks !

I was pointed to it by Kevin Brown in private email. He also showed me
how to teach ddd to use the right command as a helper.

Now I need to figure out how to get our sysadmins to make this value a
global change when our students first start ddd - so that they can
easily attach to the right postgres backend while debugging.

--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-02-14 03:04:20 Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-14 02:29:17 Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Brusser 2003-02-14 02:33:43 Re: Do we always need the socket file?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-14 02:29:17 Re: [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers