Re: postmaster.pid

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: postmaster.pid
Дата
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE475B3D@algol.sollentuna.se
обсуждение исходный текст
Список pgsql-hackers-win32
>I've occasionally thought about abandoning the PID test, in favor of
>relying completely on the shmem-existence test.  If the shmem segment
>named in the lockfile doesn't exist or has zero processes connected to
>it, we could safely assume that the original postmaster is gone.
>(If it has processes connected, we must abort anyway, to cover the case
>where the postmaster crashed but backends remain alive.)  The risk here
>is that we are then *completely* at the mercy of the OS having
>a correct
>emulation of the SysV shmem semantics, in particular the ability to
>detect whether a shmem segment has other processes connected to it.
>I'm not sure whether this is true on all the supported platforms.
>(This being the win32 list: what about Windows?)

You can try to attach to a segment if it exists. Or create a new one. It
goes away automatically when the last process referring it goes away.
(we're just doing named mmap of the pagefile). Not sure if the shmem
emualation is 100% complete on that, but it sure can be made so.

//Magnus

В списке pgsql-hackers-win32 по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Luis Rodrigues
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 release warning
Следующее
От: Oleg Letsinsky
Дата:
Сообщение: 8.0 beta1 and XP SP2