On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 08:53 -0700, Jeff Frost wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> 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