| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Mark Llewellyn <mark_llewellyn(at)adp(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sujeet Rajguru <sujeet(dot)rajguru(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running |
| Date: | 2010-11-27 00:45:56 |
| Message-ID: | 201011270045.oAR0juG02568@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > The reason this is a problem is that somebody, in a fit of inappropriate
> > optimization, took out the code that allowed canAcceptConnections to
> > distinguish the "not consistent yet" state.
>
> Oh, no, that's not the case --- the PM_RECOVERY postmaster state does
> still distinguish not-ready from ready. The real problem is that what
> Bruce implemented has practically nothing to do with what was discussed
> last week. PQping is supposed to be smarter about classifying errors
> than this.
I was not aware this was discussed last week because I am behind on
email. I was fixing a report from a month ago. I did explain how I was
doing the tests.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-27 06:38:46 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-27 00:16:20 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-27 00:49:10 | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-27 00:27:09 | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |