>>> 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

Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:58:07 +0000
"Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?
> 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

Wed, 07 Feb 2001 10:12:52 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?