Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance
Date
Msg-id 201109060214.p862Eg623166@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>> This is OK and expected. ?But then it continues (in the logfile) with:
> >>>
> >>> FATAL: ?lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists
> >>> HINT: ?Is another postmaster (PID 20519) running in data directory
> >>> "/var/data1/pg_stuff/pg_installations/pgsql.vanilla_1/data"?
> >>>
> >>> So, complaints about the *other* instance. ?It doesn't happen once a successful start (with pg_ctl
> >>> start) has happened.
> >>
> >> I'm guessing that leftover postmaster.pid contents might be
> >> responsible for this?
> >
> > The cause is that "pg_ctl restart" uses the postmaster.opts which was
> > created in the primary. Since its content was something like
> > "pg_ctl -D vanilla_1/data", vanilla_1/data/postmaster.pid was checked
> > wrongly.
> >
> > The simple workaround is to exclude postmaster.opts from the backup
> > as well as postmaster.pid. But when postmaster.opts doesn't exist,
> > "pg_ctl restart" cannot start up the server. We might also need to change
> > the code of "pg_ctl restart" so that it does just "pg_ctl start" when
> > postmaster.opts doesn't exist.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.

Has this been handled?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Shared invalidation cache messages for temporary tables
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: tolower() identifier downcasing versus multibyte encodings