X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCF69DCAEE for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94145-08 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:48:47 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635109DC941 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:48:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k2KMmjcg008559; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:48:45 -0500 (EST) To: "Thomas F. O'Connell" cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Online Backups: Minor Caveat, Major Addition? In-reply-to: <42D1F5FC-42DD-49D8-8509-0D68C5B9384C@sitening.com> References: <42D1F5FC-42DD-49D8-8509-0D68C5B9384C@sitening.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Thomas F. O'Connell" message dated "Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:54:53 -0600" Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:48:45 -0500 Message-ID: <8558.1142894925@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.113 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113] X-Spam-Score: 0.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/22 X-Sequence-Number: 3479 "Thomas F. O'Connell" writes: > A base backup taken from a running postmaster will still include a > postmaster.pid file, which will prevent a new postmaster from being > able to be started. Usually not; only if the PID mentioned in the file belongs to an existing process belonging to the postgres userid does Postgres believe that the pidfile is valid. It might be worth mentioning this as you suggest, but I think it's a sufficiently low-probability case that your failure was probably due to something else. regards, tom lane