From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: set_ps_display on solaris x86 |
Date: | 2003-02-13 19:26:35 |
Message-ID: | 200302131926.h1DJQZv05700@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
> > Sadly, set_ps_display does not seem to have any effect in solaris
> > x86. At least ps only reports multiple postmaster processes and
> > arguments.
>
> IIRC, you have to use the "other" version of ps to see the process
> status on Solaris. I forget where it lives exactly, /usr/ucb maybe?
Yep, monitoring chapter mentions it:
<productname>Solaris</productname> requires special handling. You must
use <command>/usr/ucb/ps</command>, rather than
<command>/bin/ps</command>. You also must use two <command>w</command>
flags, not just one. In addition, your original invocation of the
<application>postmaster</application> must have a shorter
<command>ps</command> status display than that provided by each
backend. If you fail to do all three things, the <command>ps</>
output for each backend will be the original
<application>postmaster</>
command line.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason Hihn | 2003-02-13 20:00:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-13 19:22:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-13 19:28:48 | Re: location of the configuration files |
Previous Message | Patrick Macdonald | 2003-02-13 19:26:25 | Re: Incremental backup |