| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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?
| 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 |