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/
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 |
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 |