Serge, Thanks for reviewing the patch.
"Serge Dubrouski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And I don't like the idea of removing PID in "start" function. The > standard approach if to remove it after stopping application. Other > way it could lead to attempt of starting a second copy of application. This is necessary for the recovery from the power failure of the primary node, for example. There is no chance to cleanup by stop in such cases. Duplicate starting is avoided by checking if the postmaster process exists beforehand, as the original script does. > > On 2/23/07, Serge Dubrouski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I like the idea of the patch, but honestly I don't like how it's >> implemented. It shall call (as Andrew suggested) "monitor" function to >> check that pgsql is up or down instead of spreading the same code all >> around the script. I'd like to review the idea and prepare another >> patch if everybody is agree. Yes, using the same monitor function would be better. I didn't do that just because it will dump many logs every seconds when it takes time to start. It is OK if you don't mind it. Thanks, -- Keisuke MORI NTT DATA Intellilink Corporation _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
