| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: (re)start in our init scripts seems broken |
| Date: | 2016-07-20 03:01:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTunrVKFTDh46QDn0Z46KAMyCwbDtw6mP5696W5tonwcQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there a reason why it's coded like this? I think we should use the pg_ctl
> instead or (at the very least) check the postmaster return code. Also,
> perhaps we should add an explicit timeout, higher than 60 seconds.
c8196c87 is one reason. Honestly, I have always found that using
pg_ctl start -w is more robust in such scripts, and it avoids
maintaining sanity checks that are duplicates of the ones in pg_ctl
after the postmaster has started. So +1 for using that. Passing the
PG_OOM_* flags is not an issue either.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-07-20 07:39:50 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-07-20 02:44:00 | Re: plperl loading files |