Re: (re)start in our init scripts seems broken

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Is there a reason why it's coded like this? I think we should use the pg_ctl
> instead or (at the very least) check the postmaster return code. Also,
> perhaps we should add an explicit timeout, higher than 60 seconds.

c8196c87 is one reason. Honestly, I have always found that using
pg_ctl start -w is more robust in such scripts, and it avoids
maintaining sanity checks that are duplicates of the ones in pg_ctl
after the postmaster has started. So +1 for using that. Passing the
PG_OOM_* flags is not an issue either.
-- 
Michael