On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 08:53 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jeff Frost <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Do you think the postmaster on 5432 is trying to archive the other > >> postmaster's WAL files somehow? > > > > Not as long as they aren't in the same data directory ;-). What Simon > > was wondering about was whether an archiver process had somehow been > > left over from a previous incarnation of the test postmaster. The thing > > to do is look through "ps auxww" (or local equivalent) and see if you > > see more than one thing calling itself an archiver process. > > > > (Whether or not this explains Jeff's problem, it definitely seems like > > a failure mode that we need to guard against. We go to great lengths > > to prevent a new postmaster from starting when there are still live > > backends from a previous postmaster, but I don't think that interlock > > is effective for the archiver.) > > Well now, will you look at this: > > postgres 20228 1 0 May17 ? 00:00:00 postgres: archiver process > postgres 20573 1 0 May17 ? 00:00:00 postgres: archiver process > postgres 23817 23810 0 May17 pts/11 00:00:00 postgres: archiver process > > 23810 is the running postmaster: > > postgres 23810 1 0 May17 pts/11 00:03:01 /usr/local/pgsql-8.1.3/bin/postm > > do you think that got left around the last time I did a pg_ctl restart? OK, I'm on it. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
