| 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)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Max Dunn <mdunn(at)xythos(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 15:59:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4340.1093363174@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I think we're on the wrong track here. If there is a pid file then the
> postmaster will try to see if the process is running by calling
> kill(pid,0) - see backend/utils/init/miscinit.c.
> However, on Windows we simulate kill(), and always return EINVAL if the
> signal <= 0 (see port/kill.c).
That's clearly broken. Should you not send the zero signal the same way
as other signals, and just let the recipient ignore it? (This assumes
that the pre-existing postmaster is accessible to a would-be new
postmaster's kill ... is that true?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-08-24 16:02:17 | Re: Postgresql 8.0 beta 1 - strange cpu usage statistics and slow |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2004-08-24 15:59:18 | Re: postmaster.pid |