Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
config variable can be dumped, even while the server is
On tis, 2011-10-04 at 17:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
thing exactly and do that based on the OS
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl?
Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
use pg_ctl to start the service. Seems to work fine.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I still think this is a matter for HEAD only. We haven't supported
these cases in back branches and so there is little argument for
back-patching.
According to Bruce's original post, there is at least one 9.1
regression here
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
implement the
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl?
Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
use pg_ctl to start the service. Seems to work fine.
Yes. The script authors discovered a working
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On tis, 2011-10-04 at 17:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I still think this is a matter for HEAD only. ?We haven't supported
these cases in back branches and so there is little argument for
back-patching.
According to Bruce's original post, there is at least
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
is no security check because we don't
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
is no
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl?
Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
use pg_ctl to start the service.
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl?
Actually, a slight correction/addition here:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:20:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
With the patch I am going to commit, you will not need to use one of the
-D flags because pg_ctl will find the data directory location; you will
just specify the config-only directory with one -D, and the
--data-directory.
So, you're saying that my passing
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:59:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
With the patch I am going to commit, you will not need to use one of the
-D flags because pg_ctl will find the data directory location; you will
just specify the config-only directory with one -D,
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 17:12 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
anyone would be able to craft in a script.
And what facts support that argument?
Anyway, this comes back to your favorite argument upthread. pg_ctl has
had occasional
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
is no security check because we don't have a user name at this point),
e.g.:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
anyone would be able to craft in a script.
And what facts support that argument?
Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find the
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find the port number,
socket location, and listen host for wait mode --- I doubt someone would
do that work in a script.
But this is the whole difference between them. An
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
is no security check because we don't have a user name at this
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
It seems both ugly and unnecessary to declare dump_config_variable as
char[MAXPGPATH]. MAXPGPATH doesn't seem like the right length for a
buffer intended to hold a GUC name, but in fact I don't think you need
a buffer at
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
It seems both ugly and unnecessary to declare dump_config_variable as
char[MAXPGPATH]. ?MAXPGPATH doesn't seem like the right length for a
buffer intended to hold a GUC name, but in fact I don't think
.
Alvaro Herrera-7 wrote:
I dunno what about Gentoo.
-
some info about gentoo
http://pastebin.com/9hbLmVJA
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/postgres-howto.xml
--
View this message in context:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:42:42AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
anyone would be able to craft in a script.
And what facts support that
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:49:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
Yes, auto-creation of symlinks would be useful, but at that point pg_ctl
and pg_upgrade would have to use the real data directory, so I again
wonder
Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find the port number,
socket location, and listen host for wait mode --- I doubt someone would
do that work in a script.
But this is the whole
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
thing exactly and do that based on the OS policy, not based on
inspecting what programs are actually
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
thing exactly and do that based on the OS policy, not based on
inspecting what
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
implement the waiting logic at shell
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
What exactly is your question? ?You are not using a config-only
directory but the real data directory, so it should work fine.
No. He is using PGDATA (= /etc/postgresql-9.0) as a config-only
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
start and stop.
Yup.
Did we not think of these things when we designed config-only
directories? I don't even
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 12:34:22 -0300 2011:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
start and stop.
Yup.
Did we not
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 12:34:22 -0300 2011:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
start and
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Config-only directories seem to be only adding confusion. All possible
solutions seem to be adding more code and user requirements, which the
creation of symlinks avoids.
Is it time for me to ask on 'general' if removal of this feature is
warranted?
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the longest time, it was
pg_ctl that was considered to be broken (for various other reasons) and
avoided in packaged
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl,
You are if you wish to run as a service on
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away with removing it.
The horse has well and truly bolted. We'd have a
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away with removing it.
The horse has well and
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Config-only directories seem to be only adding confusion. All possible
solutions seem to be adding more code and user requirements, which the
creation of symlinks avoids.
Is it time for me to ask on 'general' if removal of this
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away with removing it.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the longest time, it was
pg_ctl that was considered to be broken (for various other
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get
On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 20:39, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 15:23:47 -0300 2011:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
So, you are saying that people who want config-only directories are just
not people who normally use pg_ctl, because if they were, they would
have reported the bug? ?That seems unlikely. ?I will admit the Gentoo
case is exactly that.
As Dave has pointed out there
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:03:47 -0300 2011:
I'm not sure how big the overlap is - would it be easier if you moved
the required functionality into pg_upgrade itself, as you mentioned at
some point? As in, would it be easier to fix the config-only directory
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 15:23:47 -0300 2011:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:03:47 -0300 2011:
I'm not sure how big the overlap is - would it be easier if you moved
the required functionality into pg_upgrade itself, as you mentioned at
some point? As in, would it be easier to fix the
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Well, we are unlikely to backpatch that parse-and-report option so it
would be +2 years before it could be expected to work for even
single-major-version upgrades. That just seems unworkable. Yeah. :-(
I'd like to see the
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
involve a -o datadir option) with the parse-and-report option that has
been mentioned, and dictate that the other one doesn't
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
involve a -o datadir option) with the parse-and-report option that has
been mentioned, and
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 21:55, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
involve a -o datadir option)
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Well, we are unlikely to backpatch that parse-and-report option so it
would be +2 years before it could be expected to work for even
single-major-version upgrades. ?That just seems unworkable. ?Yeah.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
using a commandline parameter or something?
In that case (the Gentoo example), they use --data-directory
su -l postgres \
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:55:54 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
involve a -o
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:06:16 -0300 2011:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
using a commandline parameter or something?
In that
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:06:16 -0300 2011:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
using a commandline
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 19:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
long.
Well, nobody is required to use
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
pg_ctl would have to do some detective work to see if PG_VERSION existed
in that directory and adjust its behavior --- the pg_upgrade patch I
posted does this kind of detection. The goal is the change would happen
only for
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that worked.
Surely the package that contains the init script also
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
use pg_ctl.
Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of limitations. Just off the top of
my head,
On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
use pg_ctl.
Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
use pg_ctl.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that worked.
Surely the package that
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Agreed. If you remove that, the logical problem goes away and it
becomes a simple problem of dumping the contents of postgresql.conf and
having pg_ctl (and pg_upgrade) use that. Let me look at how much code
that would
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 06:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line
On 10/03/2011 06:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
What exactly is your question? You are not using a config-only
directory but the real data directory, so it should work fine.
No. He is using PGDATA (= /etc/postgresql-9.0) as a config-only
directory, and DATA_DIR (=
In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl
-w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For
example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to
determine when the server is shut down, but there is no postmaster.pid
file in the config
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:08:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl
-w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For
example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to
determine when the
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
I went through several iterations trying to find a command that can work
the way we'd like it to. (Essentially is works the way you're describing
it should.) So, in Gentoo, for the initscript, we have this really ugly
command to start the server:
su -l
76 matches
Mail list logo
