Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start intime - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Christoph Berg
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start intime
Date
Msg-id 20171112185233.tzynljip2k3ygcxn@msg.df7cb.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start intime  ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start in time  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Re: Peter J. Holzer 2017-11-12 <20171112173559.m6chmbyf4vz6fu3c@hjp.at>
> Wouldn't it be better to remove the timeout? If some other service
> depends on PostgreSQL it probably shouldn't be startet until PostgreSQL
> is really up and services which don't need PostgreSQL (e.g. SSH or X11
> login or a web- or mail server) shouldn't depend on it.
> 
> One of the purported advantages of systemd over SystemV init is that it
> starts up services in parallel, so a service which takes a long (or
> infinite) time to start doesn't block other services.

If you don't want to block, don't depend on the database service. That
question is independent from the timeout.

Christoph


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Peter J. Holzer"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start intime
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres 10.1 fails to start: server did not start in time