| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Charlie Savage <cfis(at)savagexi(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED |
| Date: | 2008-10-15 17:26:31 |
| Message-ID: | 24087.1224091591@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That can only be a solution if postmaster child processes will inherit
>> the lock.
> I don't think so, no. But we could have the children explicitly acquire
> a shared lock, so if the postmaster at startup tried to grab an
> exclusive lock that would fail if any child were still alive.
We've been through this before. That is not an acceptable substitute
because there's a race condition: a new child might have been launched
but not yet acquired the lock. We need the lock to actually be
inherited across the fork/exec so there is no window where it's not held.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-15 17:33:40 | Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-10-15 16:52:57 | Re: 8.3 .4 + Vista + MingW + initdb = ACCESS_DENIED |