Craig Ringer writes:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not unusual for "top" to show the postmaster's child processes as
>> "postmaster" as well. Depends on the platform and the options given
>> to top.
> Ah. Thanks for clearing that one up. That'd make more sense, sin
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
> > I'm a bit puzzled about why you have three "postmaster" instances shown
> > as running.
>
> It's not unusual for "top" to show the postmaster's child processes as
> "postmaster" as well. Depends on the platform and the
Craig Ringer writes:
> I'm a bit puzzled about why you have three "postmaster" instances shown
> as running.
It's not unusual for "top" to show the postmaster's child processes as
"postmaster" as well. Depends on the platform and the options given
to top.
regards, tom la
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 19:39 +0900, tanjunhua wrote:
> I'm sorry for the twice action. because the mail server reject my response.
> I should compress it with ciper code(11) and the execute program is
> compressed also.
When I build your example from source I see no indication of anything
wro
