Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

what type of start up script are you talking about here? On 10/21/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Ian Harding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10/20/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Personally I think the TIP that's really needed is "never remove>> postmaster.pid by hand". > When

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

"Ian Harding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10/20/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Personally I think the TIP that's really needed is "never remove >> postmaster.pid by hand". > When the machine crashes, don't you have to remove the pid file by > hand to get the Postgres to start? I

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

On 10/20/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Shane Ambler wrote: >> The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power >> cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good. >> >> If your server is changing the data file on

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

After all that discussion that took place while i was sleeping, I have a few more questions simply haunting me.Someitmes, rather most of the times, when I start postgres using pg_ctl, it says antoher postmaster is running. Being a total naive about the hazzards of kill -9 postmaster, i simply used

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > Well, if you kill -9 the postmaster all the connections stay alive and > stay processing tuples and writing to disk, except the coordination is > gone. The postmaster isn't involved in any critical inter-backend coordination. If you kill -9 the postmaster *and the

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:20:35AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote: > If you kill -9 the postmaster the system can still finish sending > changes to disk and close the file but pulling the power cord can stop a > write in the middle of a block giving you half new data and half old > data in the one fi

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Shane Ambler wrote: > Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > >On 10/20/06, Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power > >>cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good. > > > > > >Well, I think that pulling the power cord is much

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Dawid Kuroczko wrote: On 10/20/06, Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good. Well, I think that pulling the power cord is much safer than killing -9 the postmaster.

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

On 10/20/06, Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> After all, that's what a system crash is, right?>> A system crash is safer in that it won't leave orphaned child > processes or IPC/synchronization resources around, making it more> comparable to a SIGQUIT than a SIGKILL.>The one thing worse t

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Shane Ambler wrote: >> The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power >> cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good. >> >> If your server is changing the data file on disk and you pull the power >> cord, what chanc

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:56:09PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote: Someone in the thread mentioned having to clean up shared mem. I've had to do this often with oracle: root# ipcs -- Shared Memory Segments keyshmid owner perms bytes nattch status 0xe97c83a

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

>> If your server is changing the data file on disk and you pull the power > cord, what chance do you expect of reading that data file again?1.  That's what we have WAL for.  The only thing that can really killyou is the use of non-battery-backed write cache. Just for information: I had to suffer n

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Shane Ambler wrote: > The one thing worse than kill -9 the postmaster is pulling the power > cord out of the server. Which is what makes UPS's so good. > > If your server is changing the data file on disk and you pull the power > cord, what chance do you expect of reading that data file again?

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Andreas Seltenreich wrote: Ron Johnson writes: On 10/20/06 05:27, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: ,[ ] | It is best not to use SIGKILL to shut down the server. Doing so will | prevent the server from releasing shared

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Am Freitag, 20. Oktober 2006 13:12 schrieb Ron Johnson: > But it can't be fatal, can it? After all, that's what a system > crash is, right? Perhaps we should add another tip not to crash the system. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Ron Johnson writes: > On 10/20/06 05:27, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: >> ,[ >> >> ] >> | It is best not to use SIGKILL to shut down the server. Doing so will >> | prevent the server from releasing shared memory and s

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/20/06 05:27, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Harpreet Dhaliwal writes: > >> Its always said that don't kill -9 postmaster. >> Whats the reason not to do it. Why is it so strictly prohibited? > > ,[ >

Re: [GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Harpreet Dhaliwal writes: > Its always said that don't kill -9 postmaster. > Whats the reason not to do it. Why is it so strictly prohibited? ,[ ] | It is best not to use SIGKILL to shut down the server. Doing so

[GENERAL] why not kill -9 postmaster

Its always said that don't kill -9 postmaster. Whats the reason not to do it. Why is it so strictly  prohibited?   Thanks, ~Harpreet.