| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Igor Kovalenko" <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "Matthew Kirkwood" <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, "mlw" <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
| Date: | 2002-05-06 22:59:58 |
| Message-ID: | 19510.1020725998@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Igor Kovalenko" <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com> writes:
>> Could we get away with saying that the Unix-socket-less platforms have
>> weaker protection against mistakenly restarting the postmaster?
> Why can't we use named pipe (aka FIFO file) instead of UDS?
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
> Another thought is, why can't we use bind() to the postmaster port to detect
> other postmasters?
Because port number and data directory are independent parameters. The
interlock on port number is not related to the interlock on data
directory.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryan Bradetich | 2002-05-06 23:01:06 | Re: a couple of minor itches: RI Trigger Names, and |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-06 22:56:27 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |