Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygrunsrv-0.94-1

The power just returned here which started me thinking about this. To
restart pg I needed to delete the .pid. Is it correct that cygrunsrv
solution will not change that?

I have a applictation on a collection of laptops running NT 5 which are
vulnerable to people pulling the plug and the like. To protect the restart I
was thinking about a startup .bat to delete the .pid. Is this still
necessary?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Yankowski" <fred(at)ontosys(dot)com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygrunsrv-0.94-1

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:11:42PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > I appear to have empirical evidence that indicates that PostgreSQL
> > can tolerate receiving SIGTERM and/or SIGINT during an NT shutdown.
> ...
> > Note that this seems to
> > indicate that a Fast Shutdown can interrupt and supersede a Smart one.
> > Message [4] indicates that PostgreSQL was able to restart without any
> > manual intervention.
>
> Excellent! Your experimental results trump my hunch, big time.
>
> > Should I submit the attached patch (with ChangeLog) to cygwin-patches
> > for consideration?
>
> Yes, please. This patch would seem to provide the last piece needed
> (along with cygrunsrv) to make PostgreSQL robust as an NT/Win2000
> service. And with no changes whatsoever to PostgreSQL code -- bonus!
>
> --
> Fred Yankowski fred(at)OntoSys(dot)com tel: +1.630.879.1312
> Principal Consultant www.OntoSys.com fax: +1.630.879.1370
> OntoSys, Inc 38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510, USA
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly