On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 00:12 Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:07:26PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > But neither would the suggestion of redirecting stderr to /dev/null. > > In fact, doing the redirect it will *also* throw away any FATAL that > > happens. In fact, using the 2>/dev/null method, we *also* remove the > > message that says there's another postmaster running in this > > directory, which is strictly worse than the override of > > log_min_messages. > > Well, we could also tweak more the command with a redirection of > stderr to a log file or such, and tell to look at it for errors. > That's would be a pretty terrible ux though. > > That said, the redirect can be removed without recompiling postgres, > > so it is probably still hte better choice as a temporary workaround. > > But we should really look into getting a better solution in place once > > we start on 16. > > But do we really need a better or more invasive solution for already > running servers though? A SHOW command would be able to do the work > already in this case. This would lack consistency compared to the > offline case, but we are not without option either. That leaves the > case where the server is running, has allocated memory but is not > ready to accept connections, like crash recovery, still this use case > looks rather thin to me. I agree that thats a very narrow use case. And I'm nog sure the use case of a running server is even that important here - it's really the offline one that's important. Or rather, the really compelling one is when there is a server running but I want to check the value offline because it will change. SHOW doesn't help there because it shows the value based on the currently running configuration, not the new one after a restart. I don't agree that the redirect is a solution. It's a workaround. >> My solution for the docs is perhaps too confusing for the end-user, > >> and we are talking about a Linux-only thing here anyway. So, at the > >> end, I am tempted to just add the "2> /dev/null" as suggested upthread > >> by Nathan and call it a day. Does that sound fine? > > > > What would be a linux only thing? > > Perhaps not at some point in the future. Now that's under a section > of the docs only for Linux. > Hmm. So what's the solution on windows? I guess maybe it's not as important there because there is no limit on huge pages, but generally getting the expected shared memory usage might be useful? Just significantly less important. /Magnus
