On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 05:07:47PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes: > > > After 87306184580c9c49717, if the postmaster dies without cleaning up > > > (i.e. > > > power outage), running "pg_ctl start" just gives this message and then > > > exits: > > > > > pg_ctl: another server might be running > > > > > Under the old behavior, it would try to start the server anyway, and > > > succeed, then go through recovery and give you back a functional system. > > > > > From reading the archive, I can't really tell if this change in behavior > > > was intentional. > > > > Hmm. I rather thought we had agreed not to change the default behavior, > > but the commit message fairly clearly says that the default behavior is > > being changed. This case shows that that change was inadequately > > thought through. > > > > > Anyway it seems like a bad thing to me. Now the user has a system that > > > will not start up, and is given no clue that they need to remove > > > "postmaster.pid" and try again. > > > > Yeah, this is not tolerable. We could think about improving the logic > > to have a stronger check on whether the old server is really there or > > not (ie it should be doing something more like pg_ping and less like > > just checking if the pidfile is there). But given how close we are to > > beta, maybe the best thing is to revert that change for now and put it > > back on the to-think-about-for-9.4 list. Peter? > > Are we going to unrevert this patch for 9.5?
Seems no one is thinking of restoring this patch and working on the issue. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
