Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid
От | korry |
---|---|
Тема | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1148500903.21335.51.camel@sakai.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid (Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@officenet.no>) |
Ответы |
Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<blockquote type="CITE"><pre> <font color="#000000">On Wednesday 24 May 2006 21:03, korry wrote:</font> <font color="#000000">> > I'm sure there's a good reason for having it the way it is, having so</font> <font color="#000000">> > many smart knowledgeable people working on this project. Could someone</font> <font color="#000000">> > please explain the rationale of the current solution to me?</font> <font color="#000000">></font> <font color="#000000">> We've ignored Andreas' original question. Why not use a lock to</font> <font color="#000000">> indicate that the postmaster is still running? At first blush, that</font> <font color="#000000">> seems more reliable than checking for a (possibly recycled) process ID.</font> <font color="#000000">As Tom replied: Portability.</font> </pre></blockquote><br /> Thanks - I missed that part of Tom's message. <br /><br /><br /> The only platform (although certainlynot a minor issue) that I can think of that would have a portability issue would be Win32. You can't even <i>read</i>a locked byte in Win32. I usually solve that problem by locking a byte past the end of the file (which is portable).<br/><br /> Is there some other portability issue that I'm missing?<br /><br /><br /> -- Korry<br /><br/><br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: