Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, <nferrier(at)tapsellferrier(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?
Date: 2001-02-06 16:43:16
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0102061734550.775-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii writes:

> Moreover if postmaster detaches itself to be a deamon, nohup is not
> necessary at all.

Right. Scrap that thought then.

> BTW, for the startup script, I don't think we need to use pg_ctl.
> Invoking postmaster directry seems enough for me. The only reason for
> using pg_ctl to start postmaster is waiting for postmaster up and
> running.

Waiting for the postmaster to start up is really only useful when you
start it interactively, either during development, or if you need to
repair a problem. In either of these cases you might as well (and
probably rather should) look at the log output yourself, i.e., just use
'postmaster'.

> In most cases the time to recover DB would not be so
> long. And if the recovery took too long time, we would not want to be
> blocked in the middle of the boot sequence anyway.

Exactly. No waiting on startup by default then?

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-02-07 01:12:52 Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?
Previous Message Ian deSouza 2001-02-06 16:38:39 Problem when calling setObject on Timestamp column with JDBC driver

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2001-02-06 17:08:37 Re: ADD CONSTRAINT ... FOREIGN KEY and custom data type.
Previous Message Michael Ansley 2001-02-06 16:27:56 RE: [SQL] PL/PGSQL function with parameters