Re: (re)start in our init scripts seems broken - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: (re)start in our init scripts seems broken
Date
Msg-id 26260.1469022443@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: (re)start in our init scripts seems broken  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.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.

I think that 8f5500e6b improved that situation.  You still have to be
really careful when writing the init script that there not be more than
one postgres-owned shell process.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: dumping database privileges broken in 9.6