Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
> > > > > config variable can be dumped, even while the server is
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:59:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> > > With the patch I am going to commit, you will not need to use one of the
> > > -D flags because pg_ctl will find the data directory location; you will
> > > just specify the config-only directory wit
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> > With the patch I am going to commit, you will not need to use one of the
> > -D flags because pg_ctl will find the data directory location; you will
> > just specify the config-only directory with one -D, and the
> > --data-directory.
>
> So, you're saying that my
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:20:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > W
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Why were people not using pg_ctl?
> > >
> > > Actually, a slight correction
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:44:38AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Why were people not using pg_ctl?
> >
> > Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
> > use pg_ctl to start the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
> > > > config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
> > > > is no sec
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
> > > config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
> > > is no security check because we don't have
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I still think this is a matter for HEAD only. ?We haven't supported
> > these cases in back branches and so there is little argument for
> > back-patching.
>
> According to Bruce's original post, there is at least one 9.1
>
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2011-10-04 at 17:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
>> starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
>> existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
>> implement t
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Why were people not using pg_ctl?
>
> Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
> use pg_ctl to start the service. Seems to work fine.
Yes. The script authors discovered a workin
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
> >> starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
> >> existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
> >> implement the waiting
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still think this is a matter for HEAD only. We haven't supported
> these cases in back branches and so there is little argument for
> back-patching.
According to Bruce's original post, there is at least one 9.1
regression here relative to 9.0:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Why were people not using pg_ctl?
Actually, a slight correction/addition here: The Debian init script does
use pg_ctl to start the service. Seems to work fine.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
On tis, 2011-10-04 at 17:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> >> An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
> >> for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
> >> thing exactly and do that based on the OS policy,
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> As of fairly recently, the Fedora package also uses pg_ctl for both
>> starting and stopping. We've fixed all the reasons that formerly
>> existed to avoid use of pg_ctl, and it's a real PITA to try to
>> implement the waiting logic at shell level.
> OK
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> >> An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
> >> for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
> >> thing exactly and do that based on the OS policy, not based on
> >> inspecting what p
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> An interactive tool can dwim automatically but that isn't appropriate
>> for a startup script. A startupt script should always do the same
>> thing exactly and do that based on the OS policy, not based on
>> inspecting what programs are actually running
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find the port number,
> > socket location, and listen host for wait mode --- I doubt someone would
> > do that work in a script.
>
> But this is the whole difference betwee
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:49:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
>
> > Yes, auto-creation of symlinks would be useful, but at that point pg_ctl
> > and pg_upgrade would have to use the real data directory, so I again
> >
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:42:42AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
> > > anyone would be able to craft in a script.
> >
> > And what facts s
.
Alvaro Herrera-7 wrote:
>
> I dunno what about Gentoo.
> -
some info about gentoo
http://pastebin.com/9hbLmVJA
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/postgres-howto.xml
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Bug-with-pg-ctl-w-wait-and-config-only-directories-tp486020
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> It seems both ugly and unnecessary to declare dump_config_variable as
> >> char[MAXPGPATH]. ?MAXPGPATH doesn't seem like the right length for a
> >> buffer intended to hold a GUC name, but in fact I don't think you nee
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> It seems both ugly and unnecessary to declare dump_config_variable as
>> char[MAXPGPATH]. MAXPGPATH doesn't seem like the right length for a
>> buffer intended to hold a GUC name, but in fact I don't think you need
>> a buffer at all. I th
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
> > config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
> > is no security check because we don't have a user name at this point),
>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find the port number,
> socket location, and listen host for wait mode --- I doubt someone would
> do that work in a script.
But this is the whole difference between them. An init.d script
*shou
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
> > anyone would be able to craft in a script.
>
> And what facts support that argument?
Because pg_ctl 9.1 will read postmaster.pid and find
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, here is a patch that adds a -C option to the postmaster so any
> config variable can be dumped, even while the server is running (there
> is no security check because we don't have a user name at this point),
> e.g.:
>
> postgres -
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 18:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
> anyone would be able to craft in a script.
And what facts support that argument?
Anyway, this comes back to your favorite argument upthread. pg_ctl has
had occasional
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 17:12 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
> >> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, window
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
> > >
> > > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
> > > > would fix their command line if we gave them
On 10/03/2011 06:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 06:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
> >>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
> would f
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Agreed. If you remove that, the logical problem goes away and it
>> becomes a simple problem of dumping the contents of postgresql.conf and
>> having pg_ctl (and pg_upgrade) use that. Let me look at how much code
>> that would take.
>>
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
> > > would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that worked.
> > > Surely th
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
> >> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
> >> use pg_ctl
On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
use pg_ctl.
Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of lim
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
> use pg_ctl.
Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of limitations. Just off the top of
my head, nonsta
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:28:53 -0300 2011:
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Well, we have the Gentoo developer in this very thread. I'm sure they
> > would fix their command line if we gave them a pg_ctl that worked.
> > Surely the package that contains the init scrip
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> pg_ctl would have to do some detective work to see if PG_VERSION existed
> in that directory and adjust its behavior --- the pg_upgrade patch I
> posted does this kind of detection. The goal is the change would happen
> only for people using
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 19:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
> >> long.
> >
> > Well, nobody is required to use pg_c
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:06:16 -0300 2011:
> >
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
> > > file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
> > > using a comm
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 17:06:16 -0300 2011:
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
> > file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
> > using a commandline parameter or something?
>
>
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:55:54 -0300 2011:
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
> >
> > > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > > My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Well, how does the server get from the config file to where the state
> file is? Can we do it the same way, or even expose it to the tools
> using a commandline parameter or something?
In that case (the Gentoo example), they use --data-directory
su -l postgres \
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, we are unlikely to backpatch that parse-and-report option so it
> > would be +2 years before it could be expected to work for even
> > single-major-version upgrades. ?That just seems unworkable. ?Yeah. :-(
>
> I'd
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 21:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
>>
>> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> > > My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
>> > > involve a "-o datadir" option
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
> > > involve a "-o datadir" option) with the parse-and-report option that has
> > > been men
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:09:08 -0300 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > My guess is that we could fix the simple case (the one that doesn't
> > involve a "-o datadir" option) with the parse-and-report option that has
> > been mentioned, and dictate that the other one
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, we are unlikely to backpatch that parse-and-report option so it
> would be +2 years before it could be expected to work for even
> single-major-version upgrades. That just seems unworkable. Yeah. :-(
I'd like to see the patch first, b
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:03:47 -0300 2011:
>
> > > I'm not sure how big the overlap is - would it be easier if you moved
> > > the required functionality into pg_upgrade itself, as you mentioned at
> > > some point? As in, would it be easier
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 15:23:47 -0300 2011:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
> > > > long.
> > >
> > > Well,
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 16:03:47 -0300 2011:
> > I'm not sure how big the overlap is - would it be easier if you moved
> > the required functionality into pg_upgrade itself, as you mentioned at
> > some point? As in, would it be easier to fix the config-only directory
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> So, you are saying that people who want config-only directories are just
> >> not people who normally use pg_ctl, because if they were, they would
> >> have reported the bug? ?That seems unlikely. ?I will admit the Gentoo
> >> case is exactly that.
> >
> > As Dave has po
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun oct 03 15:23:47 -0300 2011:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
> > > long.
> >
> > Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 20:39, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> I was never exactl
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-direct
On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
> >>> to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >
>> > I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
>> > to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
>> > could get aw
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
> > long.
>
> Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the longest time, it was
> pg_ctl that was considered to be broken (for various ot
On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away with removing it.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Config-only directories seem to be only adding confusion. All possible
> > solutions seem to be adding more code and user requirements, which the
> > creation of symlinks avoids.
>
> > Is it time for me to ask on 'general' if removal of this feature is
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
> > to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
> > could get away with removing it.
> >
> >
>
> The ho
On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
could get away with removing it.
The horse has well and truly bolted. We'd have a majo
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
>> long.
>
> Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl,
You are if you wish to run as a service on Windows.
--
D
On mån, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so
> long.
Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the longest time, it was
pg_ctl that was considered to be broken (for various other reasons) and
avoided in packaged
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Config-only directories seem to be only adding confusion. All possible
> solutions seem to be adding more code and user requirements, which the
> creation of symlinks avoids.
> Is it time for me to ask on 'general' if removal of this feature is
> warranted?
Well, the way
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 12:34:22 -0300 2011:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
> > > stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
> > > start and stop.
>
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 12:34:22 -0300 2011:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
> > stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
> > start and stop.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Did we not think of
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
> stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
> start and stop.
Yup.
> Did we not think of these things when we designed config-only
> directories? I don't even see this prob
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > What exactly is your question? ?You are not using a config-only
> > directory but the real data directory, so it should work fine.
>
> No. He is using PGDATA (= /etc/postgresql-9.0) as a config-only
> directory, and DAT
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> What exactly is your question? You are not using a config-only
> directory but the real data directory, so it should work fine.
No. He is using PGDATA (= /etc/postgresql-9.0) as a config-only
directory, and DATA_DIR (= /var/lib/postgresql/9.
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> I went through several iterations trying to find a command that can work
> the way we'd like it to. (Essentially is works the way you're describing
> it should.) So, in Gentoo, for the initscript, we have this really ugly
> command to start the server:
>
> su -l p
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:08:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl
> -w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For
> example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to
> determine when the s
In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl
-w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For
example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to
determine when the server is shut down, but there is no postmaster.pid
file in the config d
76 matches
Mail list logo
