| From: | Michael Clark <codingninja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sebastien Boisvert <sebastienboisvert(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid file auto-clean up? |
| Date: | 2012-08-26 17:51:20 |
| Message-ID: | CACAT_Ad1U1AUvK75h-km0OkwKDzmmufRoOGCc0Q47myqXByO5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > We back our client application with PG,
>
> > each OSX user gets their own instance of PG.
>
> Are you certain that's necessary?
>
>
It was a decision made, weighing various trade-offs, 4 years ago now.
> > In the wild this scenario has arisen without intentional interference.
> In debugging, yes, we contrived the situation to replicate the behaviour.
> Mind you, we may be using PG in an environment that isn't advisable.
>
> What you replicated is not what happens when your problem occurs.
> Processes don't do things like that with each others PID files.
>
>
That is true.
But the system does recycle pids, especially after a reboot.
I appreciate all the feedback and input from everyone who responded.
Thank you!! You have answered our questions, and it gives us food for
thought.
Michael.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wolfgang Keller | 2012-08-26 17:57:02 | Re: Some thoughts on table inheritance (which is uniquely awesome on PostgreSQL) |
| Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2012-08-26 17:25:35 | Re: postmaster.pid file auto-clean up? |