Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > I was not using -l. Instead I set logging_collector=on in > postgresql.conf, > > but I suppose that that is not sufficent? > > No, because initial stderr is still connected to

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > I was not using -l. Instead I set logging_collector=on in postgresql.conf, > but I suppose that that is not sufficent? No, because initial stderr is still connected to whatever. > But I just retried with -l, and it still gets the fast shutdown. Hmph.

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal > >> group long before that. What

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 18:54:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal > >> group long before that. What platform is this? > > >

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Really? The server should have detached itself from your terminal >> group long before that. What platform is this? > CentOS release 6.9 (Final) Hm, same as here. Are you

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 15:15:39 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jeff Janes writes: > > > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > > > it sits there for a long time waiting for

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > > it sits there for a long time waiting for it to start up even though it > has > > already started up,

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Jeff Janes writes: > To add insult to injury, when v10 pg_ctl does restart a pre-10 server and > it sits there for a long time waiting for it to start up even though it has > already started up, if I hit ctrl-C because I assume something is horribly > wrong, it then goes

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, > > being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to > detect > >

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

On 2017-09-26 15:40:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not really feeling the need to insert a version check though. It's only a mild preference here. > Also, what would you check exactly? Inquiring into what > "postgres --version" returns is not very conclusive about what is > actually running

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was ever officially >> supported, but the current behavior is rather confusing (waiting for a long >> time, and then reporting failure, even though it

Re: [HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Hi, On 2017-09-26 11:59:42 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, > being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to detect > when startup is complete? > > I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was

[HACKERS] v10 pg_ctl compatibility

Should the release notes have a compatibility entry about pg_ctl restart, being used against a running pre-10 server, no longer being able to detect when startup is complete? I don't know if cross-version use of pg_ctl restart was ever officially supported, but the current behavior is rather