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. Honestly, I have always found that using pg_ctl start -w is more robust in such scripts, and it avoids maintaining sanity checks that are duplicates of the ones in pg_ctl after the postmaster has started. So +1 for using that. Passing the PG_OOM_* flags is not an issue either. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
