| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |
| Date: | 2016-12-24 00:25:30 |
| Message-ID: | d660bbc0-9096-1e9b-f9de-1c7b153a0648@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/23/16 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there still a use case for --no-wait in the real world?
>
> Sure. Most system startup scripts aren't going to want to wait.
> If we take it out those people will go back to starting the postmaster
> by hand.
Presumably they could just background it... since it's not going to be
long-lived it's presumably not that big a deal. Though, seems like many
startup scripts like to make sure what they're starting is actually working.
What might be interesting is a mode that waited for everything but
recovery so at least you know the config is valid, the port is
available, etc. That would be much harder to handle externally.
</feature_creep>
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-24 00:26:30 | Re: Remove lower limit on checkpoint_timeout? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-12-24 00:21:43 | Compiler warning |