From: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | korry(at)appx(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Date: | 2006-05-24 19:32:31 |
Message-ID: | 200605242132.32006.andreak@officenet.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 24 May 2006 21:03, korry wrote:
> > I'm sure there's a good reason for having it the way it is, having so
> > many smart knowledgeable people working on this project. Could someone
> > please explain the rationale of the current solution to me?
>
> We've ignored Andreas' original question. Why not use a lock to
> indicate that the postmaster is still running? At first blush, that
> seems more reliable than checking for a (possibly recycled) process ID.
As Tom replied: Portability.
--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>
Senior Software Developer / Manager
gpg public_key: http://dev.officenet.no/~andreak/public_key.asc
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Hoffsveien 17 | know how to do a thing and to watch |
PO. Box 425 Skøyen | somebody else doing it wrong, without |
0213 Oslo | comment. |
NORWAY | |
Phone : +47 22 13 01 00 | |
Direct: +47 22 13 10 03 | |
Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2006-05-24 19:33:27 | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-24 19:25:26 | Re: Further reduction of bufmgr lock contention |