| From: | "Nic Ferrier" <nferrier(at)tapsellferrier(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken? |
| Date: | 2001-02-06 00:58:07 |
| Message-ID: | sa7f4dce.054@tapsellferrier.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 06-Feb-01 12:39:24 AM >>>
> "Nic Ferrier" wrote:
>>>> - the postmaster was being started without nohup
Oliver wrote:
>> If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need
>> nohup, because init never exits and postmaster is not
>> going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
I agree... I was just putting into the script what was in the man
page about postmaster.
The man page suggests that nohup is required to init postmaster, I
know this isn't true but to implement an example init file and not
match up with the man page seemed foolish.
I guess nohup would stop postmaster doing something awfull if it
doesn't handle HUP properly but I very much doubt that you guys fail
to handle HUP.
Nic
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-06 01:49:40 | Re: Large data field causes a backend crash. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-06 00:39:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-06 01:02:04 | Re: Can we modify 'text *' passed to a C function? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-06 00:39:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken? |