From: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? |
Date: | 2006-03-20 22:57:23 |
Message-ID: | 2DD8310C-92A3-495D-8AA5-499E6E43B28C@sitening.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mar 20, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
>> A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a
>> postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being
>> able to be started.
>
> Usually not; only if the PID mentioned in the file belongs to an
> existing process belonging to the postgres userid does Postgres
> believe
> that the pidfile is valid.
>
> It might be worth mentioning this as you suggest, but I think it's a
> sufficiently low-probability case that your failure was probably
> due to
> something else.
My test scenario involved setting up a new cluster on the same
machine as the base postgres I was attempting to recover. So you're
probably right about the rarity.
What about the larger suggested change of breaking that section into
three more granular subsections? I could see commentary being
slightly more helpful for each.
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Database Architecture and Programming
Co-Founder
Sitening, LLC
http://www.sitening.com/
3004 B Poston Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203-1314
615-260-0005 (cell)
615-469-5150 (office)
615-469-5151 (fax)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-20 23:12:35 | Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-20 22:48:45 | Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? |