The timeout part is clear. But what about the process ownership part? Is it not that the story has two parts with the second part being about making sure that (in case postgres has not been [could not be] shut down properly) the postmaster recognizes, at startup, that the pid file it has found is stale?
Thanks Peter On 2/14/07, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:27:41PM -0800, P?ter Kov?cs wrote: > > I suspect that Sun's "official" documentation for PostgreSQL's SMF > > integration > > (http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/howtoguides/postgresqlhowto.jsp#2) > > is not what the PostgreSQL folks would readily call "carefully > > written": > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2007-02/msg00169.php. > > > > The crux is that the "parent" postmaster process should be started by > > a process which itself is not owned by the "postgres" user - if my > > understanding of the PostgreSQL recommendation is correct. I do not > > know how to achieve this behaviour with SMF, but I suspect that above > > mentionned Sun documentation does not do it. > > I don't read it that way. The issue appears to be a left-over lock file > and that seems to be because the stop method timeout for this service is > too short. > > Nico > -- >
