Thread: Re: Re: [BUGS] syslog logging setup broken?
>>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 04-Feb-01 10:07:40 PM >>> >> The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a portable >> init.d style (or any other such concept) startup file >> that is ready for blind use is beyond practicality. >> It might be better to collect a few of the ones that are >> being used now (Red Hat-style, SuSE-style, Debian, >> *BSD-style) and ship them. This should be coordinated >>with the packagers, though. >Should I remove init.d from /contrib? I'm just a postgres user but I don't agree with Peter. I think the file is valuable. The file is valuable for people not using a distribution such as Debian, etc... and also is usefull to people developing packages for distributions. I don't use a packaged postgres and it was certainly valuable to me because it served as an example of what I had to do to get postgres going quickly in the way that I wanted. I sent Peter an updated file that IMHO irons out some problems which may cause Peter to consider the file broken: - ouptut was being piped to the logger if "syslog" was on It's not necessary to do that because postgres handles the decision about syslog depending on the conf file. - the postmaster was being started without nohup - the system for setting options wasn't very usefull the system that I've replaced it with isn't terribly usefull either but it works. So anyway, my view as a user is that it's usefull and that a package specific version would come with the package anyway. Nic Ferrier Tapsell-Ferrier Limited
"Nic Ferrier" wrote: >- the postmaster was being started without nohup 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. nohup has a performance cost, in that (at least on Linux) it automatically nices (lowers the priority of) the process. You may not want the priority lowered... -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47 GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors;and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mightyin battle." Psalms 24:7,8
"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> "Nic Ferrier" wrote:
>>>> - the postmaster was being started without nohup
> 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.
On the other hand, when pg_ctl is invoked by hand, it probably is a bug
that it fails to use nohup. Perhaps this is a reason why pg_ctl should
not be made into a substitute for a startup script?
regards, tom lane
> > 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. > > On the other hand, when pg_ctl is invoked by hand, it probably is a bug > that it fails to use nohup. Perhaps this is a reason why pg_ctl should > not be made into a substitute for a startup script? If pg_ctl unconditionally use nohup, it might be a performance penalty as Oliver mentioned. > nohup has a performance cost, in that (at least on Linux) it automatically > nices (lowers the priority of) the process. You may not want the > priority lowered... Moreover if postmaster detaches itself to be a deamon, nohup is not necessary at all. BTW, for the startup script, I don't think we need to use pg_ctl. Invoking postmaster directry seems enough for me. The only reason for using pg_ctl to start postmaster is waiting for postmaster up and running. In most cases the time to recover DB would not be so long. And if the recovery took too long time, we would not want to be blocked in the middle of the boot sequence anyway. Comments? -- Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii writes: > Moreover if postmaster detaches itself to be a deamon, nohup is not > necessary at all. Right. Scrap that thought then. > BTW, for the startup script, I don't think we need to use pg_ctl. > Invoking postmaster directry seems enough for me. The only reason for > using pg_ctl to start postmaster is waiting for postmaster up and > running. Waiting for the postmaster to start up is really only useful when you start it interactively, either during development, or if you need to repair a problem. In either of these cases you might as well (and probably rather should) look at the log output yourself, i.e., just use 'postmaster'. > In most cases the time to recover DB would not be so > long. And if the recovery took too long time, we would not want to be > blocked in the middle of the boot sequence anyway. Exactly. No waiting on startup by default then? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/