Re: initdb start server recommendation

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: initdb start server recommendation
Date: 2015-05-07 14:17:18
Message-ID: 554B73EE.7080806@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 05/07/2015 09:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
>
> Frankly, I am not sure how they are starting the server as the
> /etc/init.d startup files don't handle multiple clusters well, and I
> have never seen instructions on how multi-cluster users are supposed to
> set things up. I assume they are copying the existing init.d file with
> a new name and modifying PGDATA and maybe the port number, then doing
> 'service ... start' or something like that. I doubt we want initdb to
> recommend that.
>

Then you haven't been paying attention, and no, that's not the right way
to do it. The PGDG RPMs, for example, support multi-tenancy very easily,
both for systems that use init scripts and those using systemd. I have
blogged about how to do this here:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20111127175231/http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/233-Multi-tenancy-under-systemd.html>
and here
<http://web.archive.org/web/20111221072621/http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/134-Multi-tenancy-done-right.html>

But in any case, it's largely irrelevant, ISTM. Anybody who actually
needs that message from initdb should almost be using pg_ctl instead of
calling postgres direct.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-05-07 14:26:55 Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2015-05-07 13:58:04 Re: initdb start server recommendation