Thread: [GENERAL] Fwd: 2 process postgres -D for one instance
Forwarding to pgsql-general list.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: francis cherat <renaultf11@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:36 PM
Subject: 2 process postgres -D for one instance
To: "pgadmin-support@lists.postgresql.org" <pgadmin-support@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:36 PM
Subject: 2 process postgres -D for one instance
To: "pgadmin-support@lists.postgresql.org" <pgadmin-support@lists.postgresql.org>
Hi,
some time whe have 2 process postgres for 1 instance like this
exppgs 17769 1 0 01:06 ? 00:01:04 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxx
exppgs 39922 17769 0 15:39 ? 00:00:00 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxx
exppgs 39922 17769 0 15:39 ? 00:00:00 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxx
is it an expected behavior ?
Regards Francis
On 8/11/17 10:15, Murtuza Zabuawala wrote: > some time whe have 2 process postgres for 1 instance like this > > > exppgs 17769 1 0 01:06 ? 00:01:04 > /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h > bd-sillage.info.xxxx > exppgs 39922 17769 0 15:39 ? 00:00:00 > /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h > bd-sillage.info.xxxx It appears that the second one is a process forked off from the first one. That looks normal to me. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 08/11/2017 02:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/11/17 10:15, Murtuza Zabuawala wrote:some time whe have 2 process postgres for 1 instance like this exppgs 17769 1 0 01:06 ? 00:01:04 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxx exppgs 39922 17769 0 15:39 ? 00:00:00 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxxIt appears that the second one is a process forked off from the first one. That looks normal to me.
Because of the reference to 17769 in the second entry?
Yes exactly. That's the parent PID for that process.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
On 08/11/2017 02:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:On 8/11/17 10:15, Murtuza Zabuawala wrote:some time whe have 2 process postgres for 1 instance like this exppgs 17769 1 0 01:06 ? 00:01:04 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxx exppgs 39922 17769 0 15:39 ? 00:00:00 /usr/pgsql-9.3/bin/postgres -D /bases/postgresql/scl/data -i -p 5450 -h bd-sillage.info.xxxxIt appears that the second one is a process forked off from the first one. That looks normal to me.
Because of the reference to 17769 in the second entry?
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us
www.seiler.us
Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> writes:
> Yes exactly. That's the parent PID for that process.
Presumably, the reason the command columns look the same is that the child
process hasn't yet had a chance to change its PS display string. The fact
that its accumulated runtime shows as 00:00:00 squares with that.
regards, tom lane