Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Is there a reason why it's coded like this? I think we should use the pg_ctl
>> instead or (at the very least) check the postmaster return code. Also,
>> perhaps we should add an explicit timeout, higher than 60 seconds.
> c8196c87 is one reason.
I think that 8f5500e6b improved that situation. You still have to be
really careful when writing the init script that there not be more than
one postgres-owned shell process.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
