Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_ctl idempotent option

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Date: 2013-01-29 16:03:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> pg_upgrade uses that to find out of the server was already running or if
> we started it.  This is to start the server to remove the
> file.  Also, no one has explained how not knowing if -o
> options were used was a safe.

What happened to the plan for pg_upgrade to use a new standalone
facility that also allows to run a normal psql in single-user mode?

IIRC the only thing we didn't want out of that patch was to market the
feature as an embedded mode of operations, because it's not, and some
level of faith that it's not blocking any future development of a proper
embedded mode.

Baring that, using the feature for pg_upgrade makes so much sense that
I'm left wondering why we're even still having the poor script trying to
decipher so much situations that the postmaster itself has no problem
dealing with.

Dimitri Fontaine     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2013-01-29 16:27:08
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fast promote mode skips checkpoint at end of recovery.
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2013-01-29 15:54:26
Subject: Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group