On 25 Nov 2000, at 17:35, Tom Lane wrote: > > So, I began restarting pgsql w/a line like > > > rm -f /tmp/.PGSQL.* && postmaster -i >log 2>log & > > > Which works great. Except that I *kept* using this for two weeks > > after the view problem (damn that bash up-arrow laziness!), and > > yesterday, used it to restart PostgreSQL except (oops!) it was > > already running. > > > Results: no database at all. All classes (tables/views/etc) returned > > 0 records (meaning that no tables showed up in psql's \d, since > > pg_class returned nothing.) > > Ugh. The reason that removing the socket file allowed a second > postmaster to start up is that we use an advisory lock on the socket > file as the interlock that prevents two PMs on the same port number. > Remove the socket file, poof no interlock. > > *However*, there is a second line of defense to prevent two > postmasters in the same directory, and I don't understand why that > didn't trigger. Unless you are running a version old enough to not > have it. What PG version is this, anyway? 7.1devel, from about 1 week ago. > Assuming you got past both interlocks, the second postmaster would > have reinitialized Postgres' shared memory block for that database, > which would have been a Bad Thing(tm) ... but it would not have led to > any immediate damage to your on-disk files, AFAICS. Was the database > still hosed after you stopped both postmasters and started a fresh > one? (Did you even try that?) Yes, I stopped both, rebooted machine, restarted postmaster. Rebooted machine, used just postgres, tried to vacuum, tried to dump, etc. Always the same story. -- Joel Burton, Director of Information Systems -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support Center of Washington (www.scw.org)
