From: | JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fcntl(SETLK) [was Re: 2nd update on TOAST] |
Date: | 2000-07-08 11:15:02 |
Message-ID: | 200007081115.NAA30848@hot.jw.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce and I were just talking by phone about this, and we realized that
> there is a completely different approach to making that decision: if you
> want to know whether there's an old postmaster connected to a socket
> file, try to connect to the old postmaster! In other words, pretend to
> be a client and see if your connection attempt is answered. (You don't
> have to try to log in, just see if you get a connection.) This might
> also answer Peter's concern about socket files that belong to
> non-Postgres programs, although I doubt that's really a big issue.
>
> There are some potential pitfalls here, like what if the old postmaster
> is there but overloaded? But on the whole it seems like it might be
> a cleaner answer than fooling around with lockfiles, and certainly safer
> than relying on fcntl(SETLK) to work on a socket file. Comments anyone?
Like it.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-07-08 11:29:17 | Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios.... |
Previous Message | Peter Mount | 2000-07-08 10:41:29 | Re: Contacting me |