Yes, of course that would be best, but I was expicitly testing
postgresql's ability to recover from power spikes and other harsh
failure scenarios. So far it hasn't missed a beat.
Jay O'Connor wrote:
>>It seems that if you start postgresql and then issue a "kill -9" on the
>>
>>
>postmaster processes a .pid file is left
>
>
>>behind (understandable), but then if you run "pg_ctl status" it will
>>immediately report that the database is running and give you the pid
>>number and whatever else. This is a bit misleading to say the least.
>>
>>
>
>First thoght is don't do "kill -9" other than the pid problem is the probem
>that postgresql caches data in memory and that could be a problem if you
>kill like that. Use pg_ctl stop -m fast or pg_ctl stop -m immediate
>
>Take care,
>Jay
>
>
>
