Re: [HACKERS] postmaster locking issues.

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > After looking into the issue of using PID file locks vs. flock/unlock, I have
> > come to the following conclusions:
> >
> > 1.  It is generally agreed that a PID lock file should replace the current me-
> >     thod of locking (fcntl based locking). (See the message thread with
> >     '[HACKERS] flock patch breaks things here' in the subject).
> >
> > 2.  The purpose of the lock file is to prevent multiple postmasters from run-
> >     ning on the same port and database.
> >
> > 3.  Two PID files will be necessary, one to prevent mulitple instances of post-
> >     masters from running against the same data base, and one to prevent
> > multiple
> >     instances from using the same port.
> >
> > 4.  The database lock will be located in the DATA directory being locked.
> >
> > 5.  The port lock will be kept in '/var/opt/pgsql/lock/'.
>
> Yes, except lock file should be kept in /tmp.  I don't have
> /var/opt/..., and I doubt others do either.

My RedHat system doesn't have /var/opt either. I'd agree with /tmp as
that's been in every unix style system I've used so far.

--
       Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk
      Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
 Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf