On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 14:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I'll respin my patch this way...
Third time's the charm?
If we do a shutdown immediate on the postmaster *after* the bgwriter has
written a shutdown checkpoint, do we have any record that there was a
panic stop? Do we enter
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we do a shutdown immediate on the postmaster *after* the bgwriter has
written a shutdown checkpoint, do we have any record that there was a
panic stop? Do we enter recovery in that case? I think the answers are
yes and no, but just checking.
Yeah, the
Tom Lane wrote:
Hence, attached revised patch ...
Looks good.
Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
still running, and the user starts a new postmaster? This would launch
a new archiver
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
still running, and the user starts a new postmaster? This would launch
a new archiver and logger; and there
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah, that seems the safest to me -- the problem is that it complicates
the shutdown sequence a fair bit, because postmaster must act
differently depending on whether archiving is enabled or not: wait for
bgwriter exit if disabled, or
Tom Lane wrote:
There was discussion of having a lock file for the archiver, but
it's still an open issue. I'm not sure how to solve the problem
of stale lockfiles --- unlike the postmaster, the archiver can't
assume that it's the only live process with the postgres userid.
For example,
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe we should go back to the plan of having the postmaster
wait for the archiver to exit.
Yeah, that seems the safest to me -- the problem is that it complicates
the shutdown sequence a fair bit, because postmaster must act
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
still running, and the user starts a new postmaster?
I wrote:
I'll respin my patch this way...
Third time's the charm?
regards, tom lane
binFKkWVCJKov.bin
Description: archiver-shutdown-3.patch
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Tom Lane wrote:
The attached patch fixes archiver shutdown in what seems to me to be
a sane way. With the patch, we send SIGQUIT to the archiver only for
panic-stop situations (backend crash or immediate-mode shutdown).
This is important because the postmaster is coded to send SIGQUIT
to the
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, so the postmaster is gone during the last archiving cycle? What
about syslogger? Is the archiver able to log stuff in the last cycle?
The logger is no problem --- it quits when it sees EOF on its input
pipe, which means that all upstream processes
I wrote:
One point needing discussion is that the postmaster is currently
coded not to send SIGUSR1 to the archiver if a fast-mode shutdown
is under way. I duplicated that in the added SIGUSR1 signal here,
but I wonder whether it is sane or not. Comments?
After chewing on that for awhile, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
