Re: pg_autovacuum start-script
От | Thomas F.O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_autovacuum start-script |
Дата | |
Msg-id | C17B7E2D-F875-11D8-9C05-000D93AE0944@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_autovacuum start-script ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hmm. Your last point in particular is one I hadn't considered, yet, largely because it's not relevant to my current problem. For a more generalized solution, though, it should definitely be considered. Does pg_autovacuum currently store the pid of the postmaster against which it's being run? In fact, how does it know against which postmaster it's being run? It doesn't take a database as an argument, does it? -tfo On Aug 27, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > Thomas F.O'Connell wrote: >> On Aug 27, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: >>> Is there anyway pg_autovacuum can know if the postmaster has >>> restarted? New PID? Or something better? >> Hmm. If the above situation is true, does it matter whether >> pg_autovacuum knows whether the postmaster restarted? > > The issue is knowing if you need to launch another pg_autovacuum > process, you certainly don't want to have two pg_autovacuum processes > running against the same server. > >>>> 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. >> Based on what you say above, though, is it even necessary to kill it? >> Why not just observe that it's running and fail to start a new one? >> Unless there's a need to restart pg_autovacuum if postmaster >> restarts. > > Perhaps not as long as you can reliably observe that it's running > against the newly started postmaster and not another pg_autovacuum > process running against an entirely separate postmaster process.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: