On Wednesday 27 April 2005 15:17, Doug McNaught wrote:
> "Uwe C. Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is this just me or did anyone actually think about adding a UPS to
> > the machine and monitor it with NUT ? That way the machine would
> > shut down properly, making the whole stale pid-fil
"Uwe C. Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this just me or did anyone actually think about adding a UPS to
> the machine and monitor it with NUT ? That way the machine would
> shut down properly, making the whole stale pid-file issue
> irrelevant.
UPSs fail. People kick out power cords
Is this just me or did anyone actually think about adding a UPS to the machine
and monitor it with NUT ?
That way the machine would shut down properly, making the whole stale pid-file
issue irrelevant.
UC
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 13:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although I like having a separate startup script that runs first to go
> around removing this and other things as well...
I think most Unix variants have a specific bootup script that's charged
with doing exactly that; if you can find it, that's a go
It is. We have been fooling with the postmaster startup logic to try to
eliminate this gotcha, but it's only very recently (8.0.2) that I think
we got it right.
So, then it would be correct to change my init scripts to do the
following: (if so, this patch can be applied to the 7.4 branch)
I woul
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:03:50PM -0400, Doug McNaught wrote:
>
> What I have done is to create a separate init.d script that
> removes the PID file, and arrange for it to run before the PG
> startup script.
An even better place (if you really want to do all this) would be
something that happens
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It is. We have been fooling with the postmaster startup logic to try to
>>> eliminate this gotcha, but it's only very recently (8.0.2) that I think
>>> we got it right.
>
>> So, then it would be c
Tom Lane wrote:
Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, then it would be correct to change my init scripts to do the
following: (if so, this patch can be applied to the 7.4 branch)
I would recommend strongly AGAINST that, because what you just did was
remove the defense against starting two po
Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It is. We have been fooling with the postmaster startup logic to try to
>> eliminate this gotcha, but it's only very recently (8.0.2) that I think
>> we got it right.
> So, then it would be correct to change my init scripts to do the
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After a power outage (and bad UPS combo, or plug pull, or bad RAM, etc)
sometimes (I would guess <10% of the time) postgresql fails to restart
automatically after booting the computer. Invariably, it is because the
"postmaster.pid" file exi
Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After a power outage (and bad UPS combo, or plug pull, or bad RAM, etc)
> sometimes (I would guess <10% of the time) postgresql fails to restart
> automatically after booting the computer. Invariably, it is because the
> "postmaster.pid" file exists, but
Hello,
The following has happened to me maybe 3 or 4 times over the past few
years (and again today), so I thought I might send in an email to the
list to see if others experience this.
After a power outage (and bad UPS combo, or plug pull, or bad RAM, etc)
sometimes (I would guess <10% of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
