| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse... |
| Date: | 2000-11-29 15:57:30 |
| Message-ID: | 27475.975513450@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> BTW, it also seems like a good idea to reorder the postmaster's
>> startup operations so that the data-directory lockfile is checked
>> before trying to acquire the port lockfile, instead of after. That
>> way, in the common scenario where you're trying to start a second
>> postmaster in the same directory + same port, it'd fail cleanly
>> even if /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432.lock had disappeared.
> Fine, sounds like reordering would eliminate the need for the socket lock
> anyway, no ?
Not at all. If you start two postmasters in different data directories
but with the same port number, you still have a socket-file conflict
that needs to be detected.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-11-29 16:31:12 | Re: Initdb not running on beos |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-29 15:55:36 | Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse... |