Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_ctl / SCM interaction

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,"pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl / SCM interaction
Date: 2004-05-24 14:50:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net] 
> Sent: 24 May 2004 15:30
> To: pgsql-hackers-win32
> Subject: [pgsql-hackers-win32] pg_ctl / SCM interaction
> Ok, help me out a bit here. We start postmaster using the SCM. As I 
> understand it, that gives us 2 processes, one (process X) 
> that interacts 
> with the SCM and one that it creates (process Y) which is the "real" 
> postmaster, and the one that writes its id in
> Now we use pg_ctl restart. It sends, say, TERM to process Y. 
> I presume 
> process X notices that Process Y has gone away, and registers 
> that the 
> service is stopped. Then pg_ctl starts another postmaster. How does 
> process X know that the new postmaster is its replacement process for 
> process X?

It doesn't. I was chatting to Magnus earlier suggesting an integrated
solution rather than a wrapper. The more I think about it the more I
think this is the only way to be certain that the service code is
singing from the same hymnsheet as the postmaster.


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-05-24 14:53:09
Subject: Re: pg_ctl / SCM interaction
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-05-24 14:35:45
Subject: Re: pg_ctl / SCM interaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group