Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 21:03, korry wrote:
> > I'm sure there's a good reason for having it the way it is, having so
> > many smart knowledgeable people working on this project. Could someone
> > please explain the rationale of the current solution to me?
>
> We've ignored Andreas' original question.  Why not use a lock to
> indicate that the postmaster is still running?  At first blush, that
> seems more reliable than checking for a (possibly recycled) process ID.

As Tom replied: Portability.

 Thanks - I missed that part of Tom's message. 


 The only platform (although certainly not a minor issue) that I can think of that would have a portability issue would be Win32. You can't even read a locked byte in Win32.  I usually solve that problem by locking a byte past the end of the file (which is portable).

 Is there some other portability issue that I'm missing?


             -- Korry