Andres Freund writes:
> It doesn't seem impossible to get into a situation where syslogger is
> the source of the OOM. Just enabling a lot of logging in a workload with
> many large query strings might do it. So making it less likely to be
> killed might make the problem worse...
Hm, so that's a
On November 16, 2017 7:06:23 PM PST, Tom Lane wrote:
>Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2017-11-16 21:39:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What might be worth thinking about is allowing the syslogger process
>to
>>> inherit the postmaster's OOM-kill-proofness setting, instead of
>dropping
>>> down to the
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-11-16 21:39:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What might be worth thinking about is allowing the syslogger process to
>> inherit the postmaster's OOM-kill-proofness setting, instead of dropping
>> down to the same vulnerability as the postmaster's other child processes.
On 2017-11-16 21:39:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We could work around a situation like that if we made postmaster use a
> > *different* pipe as stderr than the one we're handing to normal
> > backends. If postmaster created a new pipe and closed the read end
> > whenever forking a syslogger, we sh
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-11-06 15:35:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Pacheco writes:
>>> I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
>>> looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
>>> ran out of memory. But before the postmaster
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-11-17 11:09:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> when redirection_done is switched to true because the first process
>> generating a message to the syslogger pipe needs to open it first if
>> not done yet?
>
> I can't follow. The sysl
On 2017-11-17 11:09:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-11-06 15:35:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> David Pacheco writes:
> >> > I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
> >> > looks like what happened
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-11-06 15:35:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Pacheco writes:
>> > I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
>> > looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
>> > ran out o
On 2017-11-06 15:35:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Pacheco writes:
> > I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
> > looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
> > ran out of memory. But before the postmaster got a chance to handle th
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Pacheco writes:
> > I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
> > looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
> > ran out of memory. But before the postmaster got a chance to hand
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Pacheco writes:
> > ... that process appears to have exited due to a fatal error
> > (out of memory). (I know it exited because the process still exists in
> the
> > kernel -- it hasn't been reaped yet -- and I think it ran out of memory
David Pacheco writes:
> I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem. It
> looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
> ran out of memory. But before the postmaster got a chance to handle the
> SIGCLD to restart it, it handled a SIGUSR1 to star
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:38:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr writes:
- > Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the
CPU went back down.
- > I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer
wasn't taking up a lot of CPU,
- > just th
David Kerr writes:
> Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the
> CPU went back down.
> I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer wasn't
> taking up a lot of CPU,
> just the postmaster itself.
The backtrace you showed was most defini
Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the CPU
went back down.
I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer wasn't
taking up a lot of CPU,
just the postmaster itself.
Any idea why that would be?
Thanks
Dave
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> Postmaster's been spinning at 99/100% for a few hours.
>
What does "select * from pg_stat_activity" show you? Look for your
long(est) running query.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:18:46AM -0700, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
> start run it's course? for a 35GB+ database how long should I wait? is
> there no way to log the status of what the postgres daemon is actually
> doing while I wait? what's th
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> Hard to say with what you've told us so far.
>
> what more should I post/need? I was suspecting that as well as I've
Remember that mentiion of vmstat and top I made in my last post?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Hard to say with what you've told us so far.
what more should I post/need? I was suspecting that as well as I've
never had postgres be silent and not work -- I've also never let a db
fill its disk and get f'ed like this. should I just let t
On top of what the other poster said, I'm wondering if you're not
getting any kind of "postmaster not cleanly shutdown, recovery
initiated or something like that when you first start it up. You
don't tend to see a lot of messages after that until recovery is
completed.
What does top and / or vmst
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Aaron Glenn wrote:
Despite configuring postgresql.conf for excessive 'verboseness' nothing
gets outputted to syslog or the --log specified file.
You shouldn't trust those destinations for getting really unusual errors
starting the server. Change your log_destination temp
On Friday 13 March 2009, e...@devdep.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a serious issue with delete from.
>
> When I do something like:
>
> "delete from CALC_INVOICE_DATA where PERIOD_END>='2011-01-01'"
>
> the postmaster takes 100% CPU and then nothing happens.
>
Some possibilities:
1) If it's using 10
Richard Huxton writes:
> rhubbell wrote:
>> Found this on a recent install. I don't find anything documented on why
>> postmaster is LISTENing on this port. What's the purpose?
>> If it's not required how to disable?
> It should just be localhost and I believe it's the stats collector
> talking
rhubbell wrote:
> Found this on a recent install. I don't find anything documented on why
> postmaster is LISTENing on this port. What's the purpose?
> If it's not required how to disable?
It should just be localhost and I believe it's the stats collector
talking to the rest of the system.
--
Gauthier, Dave escribió:
> Well, I can start the server with
>
> postmaster -D /myplace/db
>
> ... and then...
> ^z
> bg
>
> ... to get to the prompt. But each/every time a message from the
> postmaster gets logged, it goes to stdout of the current window. I want
> it to go to a logfil
Monday, December 03, 2007 4:13 PM
To: Gauthier, Dave
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] postmaster logfile
On Dec 3, 2007 2:35 PM, Gauthier, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's a good way to start the postmaster, send the log info to a
logfile
>
On Dec 3, 2007 2:35 PM, Gauthier, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's a good way to start the postmaster, send the log info to a logfile
> somewhere, and return the linux prompt?
Use whatever startup script comes with the pacakge for your OS. I.e.
in redhat or suse you should have a postgr
ROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL]
Postmaster processes taking all the CPU> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I
promised that I will get back to the group with the reason. Well, of > >
course was a query :). I do use a search engine file system >
I promised that I will get back to the group with the reason. Well, of
course was a query :). I do use a search engine file system
based(lucene) that will take any desired entity saved into the database
and find the primary keys and then do a select * from entity where id is
in (:ids)If I
w what you
think.MCPs.I heard people complaining about my posting format. I use the
hotmail web interface and the way they send the message is beyond my control
;-|> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:13:02 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postma
times
more traffic without problems.Hope this provide more insight.MC> Date: Fri, 8
Jun 2007 16:35:40 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster processes
taking all the CPU> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:20:28PM -0500, MC M
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:08:26PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:
> Yes all the connection are coming from within the box so no network
> latency.Well, isn't the swap can be because too many process
> postmaster are requiring more memory.
But why are they requring more memory? Do you maybe have (e.g.)
l@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster
processes taking all the CPU> > First, your mail is coming through really
garbled. Maybe you need to> add some linebreaks or something? Anyway> > On
Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:58:40PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:> > > > I
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Ericson Smith wrote:
>
> Also, if you're updating that table frequently, lots of dead tuples
> will remain in there if you don't do a VACUUM FULL regularly.
No, they won't. No well-tuned postgres installation has needed
VACUUM FULL in a long time. VACUU
Marc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MC Moisei
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:11 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster processes taking all the CPU
I did that remotely, thru the psqladmin. How do I do it from tha
First, your mail is coming through really garbled. Maybe you need to
add some linebreaks or something? Anyway
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:58:40PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. What else runs on it ?I
> have an Apache that fronts a Tomcat (Java Enterprise App
problems.
Hope this provide more insight.
MC
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:35:40 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster processes taking all the CPU
>
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:20:28PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:
>
I did that remotely, thru the psqladmin. How do I do it from that box ?> Date:
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:41:57 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GENERAL]
Postmaster processes taking all the CPU> CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org> >
Have you done a full vacuum and not jus
n 2007
16:35:40 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster processes taking all the CPU> > On Fri, Jun
08, 2007 at 03:20:28PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:> > > > pack of postmaster(4-22)
processes ran by postgres user a
Have you done a full vacuum and not just a reqular vacuum?
- Ericson Smith
Developer
http://www.funadvice.com
On 6/8/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:20:28PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:
>
> pack of postmaster(4-22) processes ran by postgres user are taking
>
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:20:28PM -0500, MC Moisei wrote:
>
> pack of postmaster(4-22) processes ran by postgres user are taking
> over almost all the CPU.
What else is the box doing? If it doesn't have any other work to do,
why shouldn't postgres use the CPU time? (This is a way of saying,
"
Anyone ?From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [GENERAL] Postmaster
processes taking all the CPUDate: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:23:00 -0500
Hi,I have this server that I use as db server. It's decent box Ubuntu, 2GB, AMD
Barton 2.8Gb L2 2Mb. DB version is 7.4.7 - that version was the only o
Oh Sorry yes of corse.
No Error Msg just a ":" sign and disconnectet (I use pgadmin3 for this)
My develop postgres is on 8.2 on a windows machine.
And thanks for the hint with the log, I found a related Bug
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-12/msg00163.php
After an update of my Inst
"Christian Maier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have written a function to load yahoo quote data. abut after parsing
> the inserts will overload the server and disconnects.
You'll need to be a lot more specific than that. What error messages do
you see exactly? What shows up in the postmaster
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
Answer to Question 1:
I forgot to mention this: before i start running this program (refer
to the mail below) I clean up (rm -rf) and create the data directory
(PGDATA, by doing initdb) then i create the 4 tables (stored
procedures etc)
and then run the program Please see t
Title: Re: [GENERAL] postmaster slowing down
Answer to Question
1:
I forgot to mention
this:
before i start running this program
(refer to the mail below)
I clean up (rm -rf) and create the data directory (PGDATA, by doing
initdb)
then i create the 4 tables (stored procedures etc
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
I am using postgres 8.0.0
In my program I have a single connection to a database.
in side this connection i do the following
1. begin transaction
2. insert rows to table/s. (max number of tables = 4)
3. commit transaction
the above 3 steps take place around 800, 000 time
Larry Rosenman wrote:
Reid Thompson wrote:
Using a legacy installation ( 7.2.3 ).
Occasionally the system will reach a state where attempted psql
connection attempts fail, with the following error in the postgresql
log:
postmaster: StreamConnection: accept: No such device or address
Will als
Reid Thompson wrote:
> Using a legacy installation ( 7.2.3 ).
> Occasionally the system will reach a state where attempted psql
> connection attempts fail, with the following error in the postgresql
> log:
> postmaster: StreamConnection: accept: No such device or address
>
> Will also occasionally
Magnus Hagander wrote on 08.07.2006 06:21:
This looks exactly like the issues we've seen with broken antivirus or
personal firewall software. Make sure you don't have any such installed
(actualy installed, not just enabled), and if you do try to uninstall
them. If you don't, but had before, check
> Hello,
>
> i have a PostgreSQL (8.1) installation for testing purposes
> which was running fine for several months now (Windows XP). I
> was working with it yesterday, and today after booting my
> computer and restarting the service (I'm starting the service
> manually, because I don't need
On 07.07.2006 09:20 Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Hello,
i have a PostgreSQL (8.1) installation for testing purposes which was
running fine for several months now (Windows XP). I was working with it
yesterday, and today after booting my computer and restarting the
service (I'm starting the service m
"Averbukh Stella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After database was recreated, I do the same ps command but the output is
> completely different. The main postmaster process is gone and there are
> couple of subprocesses that are still hanging there.
Crashes of the main postmaster process are pret
Okay, there was no core dump to be found.
I had to revert back to 8.1.3 which seems to be running fine. I am /extremely/
thankful that there was no data corruption.
I took a 24 hour old dumpfile of the database it was crashing on and I restored
it to a similar AMD64 box (SunFire x2100 instead of
CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't find a core dump.
>
> Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong spot or for the wrong file. The file should
> be
> called "core.32140", correct? ... I did a "find / -name core*" ... that found
> nothing useful.
find / -name '*core*' would be more reliable. Free
I didn't find a core dump.
Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong spot or for the wrong file. The file should be
called "core.32140", correct? ... I did a "find / -name core*" ... that found
nothing useful.
--- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2006-05-25 08:3
CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2006-05-25 08:30:50.076 EDT LOG: server process (PID 32140) was terminated
> by signal 11
That should be leaving a core dump file (if not, restart the postmaster
under "ulimit -c unlimited"). Get a stack trace with gdb to get some
more info about what's going o
some doubt on my mind.
Regards
Beh
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chun Yit(Chronos)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster cannot start
"Chun Yit\(Chr
""Chun Yit(Chronos)"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> postmaster give me error every time i try to start it
> LOG: redo starts at A/46315F50
> PANIC: btree_delete_page_redo: uninitialized right sibling
>
So the last resort I can think of is to use pg_resetxlog to pass the startup
failure -- but no
"Chun Yit\(Chronos\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PANIC: btree_delete_page_redo: uninitialized right sibling
> LOG: startup process (PID 5043) was terminated by signal 6
> LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
That's pretty ugly :-(. I think your only hope to get out of it is
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But not sure why it reports the following error
message (which looks like a post-commit cleanup caused error):
DEBUG: AbortCurrentTransaction
PANIC: cannot abort transaction 14135438, it was already committed
I think this is an artifact o
4) how can i solve this problem?
The base table pg_class should be ok(pg_class_oid_ind indicates both have
the same cardinality). Try to reindex pg_class as the superuser.
but not i not be able to reindex the table because i cannot start the
postmaster.
postmaster give me error every time
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But not sure why it reports the following error
> message (which looks like a post-commit cleanup caused error):
> DEBUG: AbortCurrentTransaction
> PANIC: cannot abort transaction 14135438, it was already committed
I think this is an artifa
""Chun Yit(Chronos)"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> saw from the log file, it's possible that server crash during
> vacuum process...
>
> Question :
> 1) what happen to my database server? what the error meaning?
>
It looks like index "pg_class_relname_nsp_index" (which is an index on
pg_class) is
Volker =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=DFmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have a problem with our postmaster process, which normaly runs on port
> 5432. From time to time it spawns another process which listens on port
> 1 - which also happens to be the port for our own server. I don't find
> any confi
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
liishyanSent: 19 April 2006 10:27To:
pgsql-general@postgresql.orgSubject: [GENERAL] postmaster services
problem
Hi,
I’m having problem starting the
postmaster service at my office’s server now.
Title: RE: [GENERAL] postmaster going down own its on
hi,
i noticed the script, and at places it says
received fast shutdown request<2006-04-10 10:25:05
IST%>LOG: aborting any active transactions<2006-04-10 10:25:05
IST%idle>FATAL: terminating connection due to a
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 08:02:04PM +0530, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
>
> the scenario in which the above took place was somewhat like this
> we have a script to stop some of the processes running in the background.
>
> this script was run, and all the processes got stopped
>
> then another script will
Title: RE: [GENERAL] postmaster going down own its on
the scenario in which the above took place was somewhat like this
we have a script to stop some of the processes running in the background.
this script was run, and all the processes got stopped
then another script will start these
Douglas McNaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Could be. The actual standard use of SIGTERM is to kill processes
>> belonging to your terminal process group when you log out.
> I thought that was SIGHUP?
Doh. Not enough caffeine absorbed yet.
As penance,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 03:03:09PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
>>> What would be sending SIGTERM to a backend?
>
>> The only other thing I've ever heard of is some systems do a sigterm
>> when you pass a quota limit?
>
> Co
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 03:03:09PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> What would be sending SIGTERM to a backend?
> The only other thing I've ever heard of is some systems do a sigterm
> when you pass a quota limit?
Could be. The actual standard use of SIGTERM is t
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 03:03:09PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> >I'm not sure it's that--the OOM killer uses SIGKILL which would take
> >down the server before it could write that log entry.
>
> Hmm... (tests it) you're right. What would be sending SIGTERM to a backend?
The only other thing I'v
Douglas McNaught wrote:
Richard Huxton writes:
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
hi, is it possible for postmaster to go doen on its own?
all what the logs say is FATAL: terminating connection dur to
administrator's command.
Someone or something is issuing a kill command. It couldn't be the
infamous Linu
Richard Huxton writes:
> surabhi.ahuja wrote:
>> hi, is it possible for postmaster to go doen on its own?
>> all what the logs say is FATAL: terminating connection dur to
>> administrator's command.
>
> Someone or something is issuing a kill command. It couldn't be the
> infamous Linux out-of-mem
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
hi, is it possible for postmaster to go doen on its own?
all what the logs say is FATAL: terminating connection dur to
administrator's command.
Someone or something is issuing a kill command. It couldn't be the
infamous Linux out-of-memory handler, could it? Check your sy
It's not normal. What's the installation? OS, applications connecting to the server, etc. On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:20 AM, surabhi.ahuja wrote:hi, is it possible for postmaster to go doen on its own? all what the logs say is FATAL: terminating connection dur to administrator's command. thanks, regar
"Steve Oualline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the longest time you'd expect between the execution of the=20
> postmaster command and being able to connec?
Normal startup is a second or two on any modern hardware. If you have
to recover from WAL, though, it could be very long. A rule of t
Steve Oualline wrote:
We have an interesting problem here. We have a server at a customer's site
on which the database will not come up. Because of the nature of the
product we make, we don't turn on Postgresql logs, so no log data
is avaliable.
That's the biggest problem you've got right th
This is a little vague...There is a way to recover the data. Make postmaster come back up. Unless you're talking about postmaster not coming up due to corrupted data files, or a hardware failure.You do need to use pg_dump at regular intervals. It is common practice to back up data, after all.
No
Cott Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What exactly does
>> "would not accept" mean --- what was the exact error message,
>> and was there anything in the postmaster log?
> There was nothing in the postmaster log indicating a problem.
> The only thing I saw strange was multiple postmasters spaw
Cott Lang wrote:
Within 5 minutes, one server would not accept new remote connections. I
could log in fine w/ psql locally.
This is pretty bizarre ... offhand I would not have thought that the
postmaster depended on DNS service at all. Were you maybe using DNS
names instead of IP addresses in
> Within 5 minutes, one server would not accept new remote connections. I
> could log in fine w/ psql locally.
This is pretty bizarre ... offhand I would not have thought that the
postmaster depended on DNS service at all. Were you maybe using DNS
names instead of IP addresses in pg_hba.co
Cott Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running 7.4.8 on RHEL 3.0 x86.
> Today, on two separate servers, I modified the resolv.conf file to point
> from two functioning name servers to two others.
> Within 5 minutes, one server would not accept new remote connections. I
> could log in fine w/
:
[GENERAL] postmaster does not come up
***
Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.
***-***
On 11/25/05, surabhi.ahuja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if i try to start postmaster ...it times out.
what can be the possible cause of
On 11/25/05, surabhi.ahuja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if i try to start postmaster ...it times out.
what can be the possible cause of it . I also have seen a core file being
generated.i ll again copy paste the script i am using for starting up and shutting
down postmasterPOSTGRES_LOG="$SDCHOME/nu
Title: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster failing to start on reboot
hi,
in the script ithe statement to start and
stop postmsater as the root is commented. thats how i saw the script( has been
written by some one else)
will using 8.0.4 ensure proper starting and
stopping of postmsater
Richard Huxton writes:
> In another email you mention that this script sometimes doesn't stop PG.
> This is the relevant block of code, and you can see that the line
> starting "su -l postgres" has been commented out and replaced.
> That's strange, because my copy of pg_ctl refuses to run as roo
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
i am using PostgreSQL 8.0.0
You should upgrade to 8.0.4 as soon as is convenient - there are 4 sets
of bugfixes available.
and the statrtup script i am using is as follows:
*
#! /bin/sh
# dbxdScript for starting up the PostgreSQL
# server in t
Title: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster failing to start on reboot
Another thing that has been
noted is ...sometimes if i run the command
dbxd stop.
it fails to bring down postmaster. What
should be done in such a situation?
right now we do a kill -9
postmaster
Thanks
regards
Surabhi
Title: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster failing to start on reboot
The error
"If you're sure there
are no old server processes> still running, remove the shared memory
block with the command "ipcr> m", or just delete the file>
"/export/home1/sdc_image_pool/db
Title: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster failing to start on reboot
i am using PostgreSQL
8.0.0
and the statrtup script i am using is as
follows:
*
#! /bin/sh# dbxd Script for starting up the
PostgreSQL#
server in the daemon mode##
# postgreSQL version is:PGVERSION=8.0
Richard Huxton writes:
> surabhi.ahuja wrote:
>> So, I try starting postmaster. and it displays the following error
>> message: HINT: If you're sure there are no old server processes
>> still running, remove the shared memory block with the command "ipcr
>> m", or just delete the file
>> "/expo
surabhi.ahuja wrote:
Hello everyone,
I reboot my machine while postmaster is up.
after the m/c gets rebooted , I grep for the process "postmaster",
and it does not find it.
So, I try starting postmaster. and it displays the following error
message: HINT: If you're sure there are no old serve
Am Freitag, 30. September 2005 07:07 schrieb surabhi.ahuja:
> /usr/bin/pg_ctl -D /export/home1/sdc_image_pool/dbx/ stop
> the following is displayed:
> waiting for postmaster to shut
> down... failed
> pg_ctl: postmaster does not shut down
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Zbigniew_Zag=F3rski?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> postgres[89874]: [1-1] LOG: XX000: select() failed in postmaster:
> Inappropriate ioctl for device
Wow, that's bizarre.
> After closing all connections, postmaster exits leaving no message in
> logs - these above are last before
eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Im running postgres on OS X 10.4.2. Im having a problem starting
> postgres though... but its maybe something dumb im doing...
> So i su -l postgres and cd to my /opt/local/bin where postmaster is...
> But i always get a:
> -su: postmaster: command not found
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why is the postmaster link to the postgres executable used to run the
> postgres
> server rather than running the postgres executable directly? I have a client
> who wishes to use a monitoring application, and the fact that a link to an
> executable is used is causin
I imagine because the name of the program as seen by the kernel (for
example with ps) uses the name the program was started with, not the
name of the actual binary. That way you can use the same binary for
multiple purposes.
If the link causes you a problem, replace the link with a copy of the
fil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello
>
> Why is the postmaster link to the postgres executable used to run
> the postgres server rather than running the postgres executable
> directly? I have a client who wishes to use a monitoring
> application, and the fact that a link to an executable is used is
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
