On 2/25/07, Keisuke MORI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Yes, but in this case you remov the legitimate pid file from the
running instance. You remove it before testing that the checking for
postmaster. Let me think about it, I don't know what is worse in a
such case. Probably you are right and we has the right to think that
Postgress shouldn't be started outside of cluster control.
>
> 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.
Don't think that this is a problem. Those files are big even without
those records.
Thanks for all these proposals.
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/
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
