Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid
От | korry |
---|---|
Тема | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1148506126.21335.81.camel@sakai.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<blockquote type="CITE"><pre> <font color="#000000">Alvaro Herrera <<a href="mailto:alvherre@commandprompt.com">alvherre@commandprompt.com</a>> writes:</font> <font color="#000000">> Certainly on all platforms there must be *some* locking primitive. We</font> <font color="#000000">> just need to figure out the appropiate parameters to fcntl() or flock()</font> <font color="#000000">> or lockf() on each.</font> </pre></blockquote><br /> I use lockf() (not fcntl() or flock()) on every platform other than Win32. Of course, I may notrun on every system that PostgreSQL supports.<br /><br /><blockquote type="CITE"><pre> <font color="#000000">Quite aside from the hassle factor of needing to deal with N variants of</font> <font color="#000000">the syscalls, I'm not convinced that it's guaranteed to work. ISTR that</font> <font color="#000000">for instance NFS file locking is pretty much Alice-in-Wonderland :-(</font> <font color="#000000">Since the entire point here is to have a guaranteed bulletproof check,</font> <font color="#000000">locks that work most of the time on most platforms/filesystems aren't</font> <font color="#000000">gonna be an improvement.</font> </pre></blockquote><br /> NFS file locking may certainly be problematic. I don't know about NFS byte-range locking.<br /><br/> What we currently have in place is not bulletproof. I think holding a byte-range lock in addition to the "is theresome process with the right pid?" check might be a little more bullet resistant :-)<br /><br /><br /> --Korry<br /><br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: