On Jun 13, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Frost <j...@pgexperts.com> writes: >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> ... So one theory about this would be that those processes >>> aren't absorbing the GUC updates, perhaps because the SIGHUP signals the >>> postmaster should be sending them are getting lost. > >> Interestingly, it will often pick them up if you wait a few seconds and send >> it another reload. > > Hmm, that definitely lends some credence to the lost-signal theory, > since another reload would cause the postmaster to again signal all > its children, and this time the signal might go through. > > But I still have no idea how we might debug further. You could possibly > try something like strace'ing the processes, but it seems fairly likely > that the Heisenberg principle would apply if you did.
What I don't understand is the new log file being created from the new log_filename setting but then nothing being logged into it. Is it the postmaster which creates that file? I would've thought it would be the logger process? -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
