Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Ok, fixed and applied. > > You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. > Patch attached. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Po

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Fujii Masao
Oh, sorry for repeating the same posts. Gmail seems to have not worked fine... :( On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Ok, fixed and applied. > > You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. > Patch attached. > > Re

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Ok, fixed and applied. You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center protocol_sgml_v1.patch Description: Binary dat

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Ok, fixed and applied. You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center protocol_sgml_v1.patch Description: Binary dat

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Ok, fixed and applied. You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center protocol_sgml_v1.patch Description: Binary dat

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Ok, fixed and applied. You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center protocol_sgml_v1.patch Description: Binary dat

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-18 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > I looked over this issue and I don't thinking having pg_ctl restart > fall > > > back to 'start' is a good solution. ?I am concerned about cases where > we > > > start a different server without shutting down the o

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I looked over this issue and I don't thinking having pg_ctl restart fall > > back to 'start' is a good solution. ?I am concerned about cases where we > > start a different server without shutting down the old server, for some > > reason. ?When they say 'restart', I think

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-12 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 23:35, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> >>> This is OK and expected. ?But then it

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-10-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > >>> This is OK and expected. ?But then it continues (in the logfile) with: > >>> > >>> FATAL: ?lock file "

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-09-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > >>> This is OK and expected. ?But then it continues (in the logfile) with: > >>> > >>> FATAL: ?lock file "

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-04-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > >> This is OK and expected. ?But then it continues (in the logfile) with: > >> > >> FATAL: ?lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists > >> HINT: ?Is another postmas

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-03-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>> This is OK and expected.  But then it continues (in the logfile) with: >>> >>> FATAL:  lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-03-22 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> This is OK and expected.  But then it continues (in the logfile) with: >> >> FATAL:  lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists >> HINT:  Is another postmaster (PID 20519) running in data

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-03-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > This is OK and expected.  But then it continues (in the logfile) with: > > FATAL:  lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists > HINT:  Is another postmaster (PID 20519) running in data directory > "/var/data1/pg_stuff/pg_installations/pgsql.van

[HACKERS] pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance

2011-03-18 Thread Erik Rijkers
I am not sure the following pg_ctl behaviour is really a bug, but I find it unexpected enough to report. I was testing synchronous replication in a test setup on a single machine. (After all, one could have different instances on different arrays, right? If you think this is an unlikely use-c