The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> > > So what ever the outcome for the wider PostgreSQL community, I must make
> > > the change to conform to Debian policy.
> > Just out of curiosity, does Debian enforce a nonstandard location for
> > X sockets as well?
> Just curious here ... there seems to have been *alot* of energy expended
> on this ... is there any reason why we don't just have a configuration
> option like other software has, that defaults to /tmp like we have it now,
> but that makes it easier for others to change it for their installs, as
> required?
It has touched a nerve, hasn't it? I like your solution -- but, to
reiterate, this IMHO is 7.2 material, unless we want to go the feature
patch route, or someone considers this a 'bugfix' (I don't). Unless it
is a trivial change, that is.
Tom fixed the bug with a slight kludge -- by touching the lock
periodically, the problem is ameliorated for now. But as long as we
have a persistent file in /tmp we will run into OS-dependent problems.
I can see now a bug report that PostgreSQL is unreliable because it
keeps crashing every x days (due to a tmpreaper-like program the hapless
user doesn't know is running in cron....).
Since pg_config already reports what configure options were provided, if
this is a configure option then the end user can easily find it with
pg_config, if a static linkage or binary-only custom client that
directly accesses the fe-be protocol (are there any that we know
about?).
But we don't need to spend a great deal of time on it, regardless.
Speaking of time to spend, are we a 'go' for beta4 yet? ETA? (so I can
budget time to rebuild RPM's).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11