Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid

On Thursday 25 May 2006 14:35, korry wrote:
> > That's not workable, unless you want to assume that nothing on the
> > system except Postgres uses SysV semaphores. Otherwise something else
> > could randomly gobble up the semid you want to use. I don't care very
> > much for requiring a distinct semid to be hand-specified for each
> > postmaster on a machine, either.
>
> Yeah, that does suck. Ok, naming problems seem to make semaphores
> useless.
>
> I'm back to byte-range locking, but if NFS is important and is truly
> unreliable, then that's out too.
>
> I've never had locking problems on NFS (probably because we tell our
> users not to use NFS), but now that I think about it, SMB locking is
> very unreliable so Win32 would be an issue too.

What I don't get is why everybody think that because one solution doesn't fit
all needs on all platforms(or NFS), it shouldn't be implemented on those
platforms it *does* work on. Why can't those platforms(like Linux) benefit
from a better solution, if one exists? There are plenty of examples of
software providing better solutions on platforms supporting more features.

--
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 | |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+