"Serge Dubrouski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Serge Dubrouski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > And I don't like the idea of removing PID in "start" function. The
>> > standard approach if to remove it after stopping application. Other
>> > way it could lead to attempt of starting a second copy of application.
>>
>> This is necessary for the recovery from the power failure of the
>> primary node, for example. There is no chance to cleanup by stop
>> in such cases.
>>
>> Duplicate starting is avoided by checking if the postmaster
>> process exists beforehand, as the original script does.
>
> Yes, but in this case you remov the legitimate pid file from the
> running instance. You remove it before testing that the checking for
> postmaster.
Well, I think that the script does the cheking for postmaster first
and removing it second (remove it only when no postmaster process exists).
Here's the code snip with my patch.
pgsql_status checks for it and I think it should be good enough.
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
pgsql_start() {
if pgsql_status
then
ocf_log info "PostgreSQL is already running. PID=`cat $PIDFILE`"
return $OCF_SUCCESS
fi
if [ -x $PGCTL ]
then
# Remove postmastre.pid if it exists
rm -f $PIDFILE
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
> Let me think about it, I don't know what is worse in a
> such case. Probably you are right and we has the right to think that
> Postgress shouldn't be started outside of cluster control.
If postmaster was already started outside of heartbeat control,
then it should return OCF_SUCCESS and the postmaster should
continue to run.
Power failure is one of the most typical situation that we want
to save with HA software, so this 'cleanup in start' is
important, I think.
Maybe it would be nice if we put a WARN log before removing it.
Thanks,
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 2/23/07, Serge Dubrouski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I like the idea of the patch, but honestly I don't like how it's
>> >> implemented. It shall call (as Andrew suggested) "monitor" function to
>> >> check that pgsql is up or down instead of spreading the same code all
>> >> around the script. I'd like to review the idea and prepare another
>> >> patch if everybody is agree.
>>
>> Yes, using the same monitor function would be better.
>> I didn't do that just because it will dump many logs every
>> seconds when it takes time to start.
>> It is OK if you don't mind it.
>
> Don't think that this is a problem. Those files are big even without
> those records.
>
> Thanks for all these proposals.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Keisuke MORI
>> NTT DATA Intellilink Corporation
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
>> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
>>
> _______________________________________________________
> Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
--
Keisuke MORI
Open Source Business Division
NTT DATA Intellilink Corporation
Tel: +81-3-3534-4811 / Fax: +81-3-3534-4814
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
