The man page suggests that nohup is required to init postmaster, I
know this isn't true but to implement an example init file and not
match up with the man page seemed foolish.
I guess nohup would stop postmaster doing something awfull if it
doesn't handle HUP properly but I very much
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04-Feb-01 10:07:40 PM
The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a portable
init.d style (or any other such concept) startup file
that is ready for blind use is beyond practicality.
It might be better to collect a few of the ones that are
being used now
"Oliver Elphick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Nic Ferrier" wrote:
- the postmaster was being started without nohup
If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need nohup, because
init never exits and postmaster is not going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
On the other hand, when
If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need nohup, because
init never exits and postmaster is not going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
On the other hand, when pg_ctl is invoked by hand, it probably is a bug
that it fails to use nohup. Perhaps this is a reason why pg_ctl
Tom Lane writes:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The example startup file is outdated and broken. Don't use it.
Er ... shouldn't we fix it? Or remove it?
See my message on -hackers, "Sparc/Linux patch" thing follow-up.
The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a portable init.d
Tom Lane writes:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The example startup file is outdated and broken. Don't use it.
Er ... shouldn't we fix it? Or remove it?
See my message on -hackers, "Sparc/Linux patch" thing follow-up.
The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a
Nic Ferrier writes:
Should I remove init.d from /contrib?
I'm just a postgres user but I don't agree with Peter. I think the
file is valuable.
I didn't say it wasn't valuable, I just said it didn't work...
This problem seems to call for a more general solution than a handful of
example
