From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Questions about pid file creation code |
Date: | 2007-04-03 17:40:56 |
Message-ID: | 10197.1175622056@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The start script does not typically have the intelligence to get this
>> right, particularly not the is-shmem-still-in-use part. If you check
>> the archives you will find many of us on record telling people who think
>> they should remove the pidfile in their start script that they're crazy.
> It is true, but question is what way is better. Keep all logic in
> postmaster or improve pg_ctl to share more information and keep
> responsibility on start scripts or monitoring tool which has more
> information about system as complex.
If you have conditions PG doesn't know about, you're free to test for
them in your start script. I see no reason to change this code, however.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-03 17:45:42 | Re: notification payloads |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-04-03 17:37:27 | Re: Synchronized Scan benchmark results |