Re: bgwriter never dies

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, 'Jan Wieck' <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bgwriter never dies
Date: 2004-02-27 14:29:17
Message-ID: 20040227142917.GA22237@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 17:09:21 -0500,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Should we have a pgmon process that watches the postmaster
> > and restarts it if required?
>
> I doubt it; in practice the postmaster is *very* reliable (because it
> doesn't do much), and so I'm not sure that adding a watchdog is going to
> increase the net reliability of the system. The sorts of things that
> could take out the postmaster are likely to take out a watchdog too.

Running postgres under daemontools is an easy way to accomplish this.
The one case it won't handle is if some process gets the process id
from the old postgres process before the new one starts up.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-02-27 14:29:24 Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
Previous Message Bort, Paul 2004-02-27 14:17:13 Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal