| From: | Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | am(at)fx(dot)ro, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Date: | 2003-01-03 22:38:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20030103173657.O91507-100000@m20.unixathome.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note also that under most circumstances, a stale postmaster.pid file
> should not prevent the postmaster from starting (because it will ignore
> the old .pid file if it can see that there is no process with that PID
> alive anymore). The case where you lose is only when there is another
> process running that by chance has the same PID that was assigned to the
> old postmaster on the system's previous uptime cycle. The postmaster
> can't tell that such a process isn't really a conflicting postmaster,
> so it gives up for safety's sake.
This is a situation which I've often wondered about, for other scripts,
not PostgreSQL. I've not found a happy solution yet.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-03 22:49:27 | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-01-03 22:13:17 | Re: How to backup a postgreSQL of 80 GByte ? |