Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, Igor Kovalenko <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com>, 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 14:35:20
Message-ID: 20020506113337.V32524-100000@mail1.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I said:
> > But the backends would only have the socket open, they'd not be actively
> > listening to it. So how could you tell whether anyone had the socket
> > open or not?
>
> Oh, I take that back, I see how you could do it: the postmaster opens
> the socket *for writing*, but never actually writes. All its child
> processes inherit that same open file descriptor and just keep it
> around. Then, to tell if anyone's home, you open the socket *for
> reading* and try to read in O_NONBLOCK mode. You get an EOF indication
> if and only if no one has the socket open for writing; otherwise you
> get an EAGAIN error.
>
> That would work ... but is it more portable than depending on SysV
> shmem connection counts? ISTR that some of the platforms we support
> don't have Unix-style sockets at all.

Wouldn't the same thing work with a simple file? Does it have to be a
UnixDomainSocket?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-05-06 14:48:30 Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-05-06 14:25:02 Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports