Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid

<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 />