Re: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utilityprocess may go down?
| От | soumitra bhandary |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utilityprocess may go down? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | MA1PR0101MB1687CD583F1DA7EB6E8C66F9E08C0@MA1PR0101MB1687.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utilityprocess may go down? (rajan <vgmonnet@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utilityprocess may go down?
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
Hi ,
If wal sender process exceeds the max_wal_sender_timeout parameter value , it might stop sending the wal to the slave nodes . But will not die out . In this case you may notice no change in the wal location associated with wal sender process .
Please refer to the Postgres log for exact issue .
Thanks,
Soumitra
Soumitra
From: rajan <vgmonnet@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 3:26 PM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utility process may go down?
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 3:26 PM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utility process may go down?
Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background process may go down?
meaning the process getting stopped?
For example, can the wal sender process alone stop working? If it does so,
which part of the logs I must check to proceed further.
-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html
meaning the process getting stopped?
For example, can the wal sender process alone stop working? If it does so,
which part of the logs I must check to proceed further.
-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: