| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On file locking |
| Date: | 2003-01-31 06:50:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200301311220.41676.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 31 Jan 2003 9:56 am, you wrote:
> Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> But this only wins if a child process inheriting an open file also
> inherits copies of any locks held by the parent. If not, then the
> issue is moot. Anybody have any idea if file locks work that way?
> Is it portable??
In my experience of HP-UX and linux, they do differ. How much, I don't
remember.
I have a stupid proposal. Keep file lock aside. I think shared memory can be
kept alive even after process dies. Why not write a shared memory segment id
to a file and let postmaster check that segment. That would be much easier.
Besides file locking is implemented using setgid bit on most unices. And
everybody is free to do what he/she thinks right with it.
May be stupid but just a thought..
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-31 06:58:14 | Re: postgres installation - best configuration? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2003-01-31 06:27:15 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |