From: | korry <korry(at)appx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Date: | 2006-05-24 21:28:46 |
Message-ID: | 1148506126.21335.81.camel@sakai.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Certainly on all platforms there must be *some* locking primitive. We
> > just need to figure out the appropiate parameters to fcntl() or flock()
> > or lockf() on each.
I use lockf() (not fcntl() or flock()) on every platform other than
Win32. Of course, I may not run on every system that PostgreSQL
supports.
>
> Quite aside from the hassle factor of needing to deal with N variants of
> the syscalls, I'm not convinced that it's guaranteed to work. ISTR that
> for instance NFS file locking is pretty much Alice-in-Wonderland :-(
>
> Since the entire point here is to have a guaranteed bulletproof check,
> locks that work most of the time on most platforms/filesystems aren't
> gonna be an improvement.
NFS file locking may certainly be problematic. I don't know about NFS
byte-range locking.
What we currently have in place is not bulletproof. I think holding a
byte-range lock in addition to the "is there some process with the right
pid?" check might be a little more bullet resistant :-)
-- Korry
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-24 21:33:02 | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Previous Message | korry | 2006-05-24 21:23:57 | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |