Re: pg_autovacuum start-script
От | Matthew T. O'Connor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_autovacuum start-script |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 412F9B75.7020205@zeut.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_autovacuum start-script (Thomas F.O'Connell <tfo@sitening.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_autovacuum start-script
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote: > I'm about to try to implement a simple pg_autovacuum script that can be > used in conjunction with or integrated entirely with the contrib > start-scripts for postgres. I just want to check that what I'm doing has > the appropriate sanity checks. Getting the startup and shutdown of pg_autovacuum coordinated with the postmaster would address one of the big holes in contrib (non-integrated) version of pg_autovacuum. > The behavior I'm considering is: > > if pg_ctl status returns a good value then > if pg_autovacuum is not running then > start pg_autovacuum > else > error > else > error > > Based on what I (think I) know, this covers the cases where: > > 1. There is not a valid instance of postgres running. > 2. There is already a valid instance of pg_autovacuum running (which can > still run as a daemon even in the event that postgres is stopped, IIRC). > 3. It is safe to start pg_autovacuum because neither of the above cases > holds. pg_autovacuum will exit when it can no longer connect to a postmaster. The problem is that it might sleep for several minutes before it notices that the postmaster has shutdown. So, you can restart the postmaster and as long as pg_autovacuum never noticed that it went away, it will keep chugging along as if nothing happened. Is there anyway pg_autovacuum can know if the postmaster has restarted? New PID? Or something better? > Is this logic sufficiently sane? Well if the script also sends a kill signal to pg_autovacuum that might solve the pg_autovacuum still running problem.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: