From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
Date: | 2006-05-19 15:49:18 |
Message-ID: | 578.1148053758@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> writes:
> Do you think the postmaster on 5432 is trying to archive the other
> postmaster's WAL files somehow?
Not as long as they aren't in the same data directory ;-). What Simon
was wondering about was whether an archiver process had somehow been
left over from a previous incarnation of the test postmaster. The thing
to do is look through "ps auxww" (or local equivalent) and see if you
see more than one thing calling itself an archiver process.
(Whether or not this explains Jeff's problem, it definitely seems like
a failure mode that we need to guard against. We go to great lengths
to prevent a new postmaster from starting when there are still live
backends from a previous postmaster, but I don't think that interlock
is effective for the archiver.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2006-05-19 15:53:51 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2006-05-19 15:23:11 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-05-19 15:52:02 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-19 15:43:43 | Re: New feature proposal |