From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Allan Engelhardt <allane(at)cybaea(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Automatically starting postmaster after system crash |
Date: | 2001-10-18 17:42:08 |
Message-ID: | 24636.1003426928@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Allan Engelhardt <allane(at)cybaea(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's kinda hard to believe; how would a shared memory segment survive
>> a system crash?
> I don't think they can. Some options:
> (1) PostgreSQL keeps a reference to it somewhere and can get confused...
Indeed, there is a reference to the old segment in the postmaster.pid
file. At startup, if there's a postmaster.pid file, Postgres checks to
see that the indicated shared memory segment is gone or at least has no
processes attached to it. (This is a defense against the possibility
that the old postmaster died but there are still backends running in
the database.) Evidently, that check is mistakenly thinking that there
*is* still a shmem seg with attached processes. Question is why?
> Seriously: I tried to reproduce using SysRq+S, SysRq+B and couldn't. I
> think I have seen enough fsck for one night, so I might give it a rest...
You might try just kill -9'ing the postmaster, rather than physically
rebooting your system.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Morozovsky | 2001-10-18 17:49:09 | Re: update in rule |
Previous Message | Brett Schwarz | 2001-10-18 16:31:49 | Re: Please help - tks |