From: | "David Parker" <dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "postgres general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: monitoring database activity on solaris |
Date: | 2005-04-06 22:37:33 |
Message-ID: | 07FDEE0ED7455A48AC42AC2070EDFF7C5CF521@corpsrv2.tazznetworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
OK, thanks. We're using pg_ctl to start it at the moment, but we can
obviously change that.
- DAP
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:18 PM
>To: David Parker
>Cc: postgres general
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] monitoring database activity on solaris
>
>"David Parker" <dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com> writes:
>> According to the 7.4 doc section on monitoring database
>activity, one
>> should be able to see the current activity happening in a given
>> postgres process. It mentions that on Solaris (which we are running
>> on) you need to use /usr/ucb/ps, and it also says
>>
>> " your original invocation of the postmaster command must have a
>> shorter ps status display than that provided by each server process "
>
>Yeah. This is a Solaris peculiarity that we only figured out
>by chance.
>The best bet is to make sure that your postmaster start script
>invokes the postmaster as
> postmaster
>no more. No path (set PATH beforehand instead). No
>command-line switches (whatever you might want there can be
>put into postgresql.conf instead). Redirection is OK, but
>keep the command line itself to a minimum. "postmaster" and
>nothing else will be shorter than any of the ps display
>settings the postmaster's children use ... but if you have a
>bunch of command-line arguments, it'll be longer, and Solaris'
>ps will choose to display the wrong thing.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-04-06 22:37:34 | Re: lower function |
Previous Message | Otto Blomqvist | 2005-04-06 22:31:45 | Re: [GENERAL] Problems with Set Returning Functions (SRFs) |