| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert M(dot) Meyer" <rmeyer(at)installs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | nickf(at)ontko(dot)com, pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Leftover processes on shutdown - Debian+JDBC |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 16:50:19 |
| Message-ID: | 27126.1029257419@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-jdbc |
"Robert M. Meyer" <rmeyer(at)installs(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm... You're right. How much longer does a '-m fast' take. The
> reason I ask is because during a server shutdown, init doesn't wait
> around long after the script exits. The problem with not using the '-m'
> is that pg_ctl returns quickly but the DB may not be down, causing the
> system to pull the rug out from under it.
(a) The solution to that is to use the -w option to pg_ctl, no?
(b) -m immediate is just as dangerous as letting the system pull the
rug out. Probably more so, as the system is unlikely to get around to
killing Postgres before we've had a chance to flush shared buffers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-08-13 16:56:18 | Re: Leftover processes on shutdown - Debian+JDBC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-13 16:38:03 | Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-08-13 16:56:18 | Re: Leftover processes on shutdown - Debian+JDBC |
| Previous Message | Robert M. Meyer | 2002-08-13 16:36:22 | Re: Leftover processes on shutdown - Debian+JDBC |