Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> — 2001-02-06T00:58:07Z

   >>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 06-Feb-01 12:39:24 AM >>>
   
   > "Nic Ferrier" wrote:
   >>>> - the postmaster was being started without nohup
    
   Oliver wrote:
   >> If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need 
   >> nohup, because init never exits and postmaster is not 
   >> going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
   
   I agree... I was just putting into the script what was in the man
   page about postmaster.
   
   The man page suggests that nohup is required to init postmaster, I
   know this isn't true but to implement an example init file and not
   match up with the man page seemed foolish.
   
   I guess nohup would stop postmaster doing something awfull if it
   doesn't handle HUP properly but I very much doubt that you guys fail
   to handle HUP.
   
   
   Nic
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> — 2001-02-07T01:12:52Z

   > The man page suggests that nohup is required to init postmaster, I
   > know this isn't true but to implement an example init file and not
   > match up with the man page seemed foolish.
   > 
   > I guess nohup would stop postmaster doing something awfull if it
   > doesn't handle HUP properly but I very much doubt that you guys fail
   > to handle HUP.
   
   Good point. postmaster in 7.1 uses HUP signal to re-read
   postgresql.conf. It seems we should not use nohup to start postmaster.
   --
   Tatsuo Ishii