Обсуждение: Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background/Utilityprocess may go down?

Is there any way that one of the Postgres Background process may go down? 
meaning the process getting stopped? 

For example, can the wal sender process alone stop working? If it does so, 
which part of the logs I must check to proceed further. 



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

Thanks Soumitra for your swift reply.

Can someone throw more light on a process  - which might terminate or stop
responding?



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

rajan <vgmonnet@gmail.com> writes:
> Can someone throw more light on a process  - which might terminate or stop
> responding?

*You* are the one who needs to throw more light; this question is too
vague to be usefully answerable.  What symptoms are you seeing exactly?
Have you looked into the system monitoring views (e.g. pg_locks) to
see if there are relevant entries?

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems

            regards, tom lane

Ok. Let me explain my use case from where I am asking this question,

For configuring Postgres Monitoring using a tool,
Is it enough if I just add the Postmaster process alone for Monitoring? or
Should I add all background processes for Monitoring?



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

It is a custom script which we have developed for *monitoring the
processes(only)*. That is why I am asking if adding the postmaster alone
would suffice, or I should add all the background process names?

PS: These process checks are just to make sure that postgres is running.



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

All,

Thanks for the replies. But let me ask the question like this,

Should I add all background processes for monitoring? Or adding the
postmaster only is sufficient?

It is like, is there a possibility that one of the background processes may
go down? Did someone face a situation like that?



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

Oh. That's great, Shreeyansh. Have you seen that working?



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

great news! Thanks Shreeyansh.



-----
--
Thanks,
Rajan.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html

rajan wrote:
> Ok. Let me explain my use case from where I am asking this question,
> 
> For configuring Postgres Monitoring using a tool,
> Is it enough if I just add the Postmaster process alone for Monitoring? or
> Should I add all background processes for Monitoring?

I'd have the monitoring tool establish a database connection regularly.
If that works, and you can run a simple SELECT, things look good.

Other than that, the best you can do is monitor the database log file
for nasty messages like PANIC.  Unfortunately there is no simple rule
to determine automatically which log entries are serious errors.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
-- 
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com