| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, Igor Kovalenko <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
| Date: | 2002-05-06 14:48:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5352.1020696510@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>> That would work ... but is it more portable than depending on SysV
>> shmem connection counts? ISTR that some of the platforms we support
>> don't have Unix-style sockets at all.
> Wouldn't the same thing work with a simple file? Does it have to be a
> UnixDomainSocket?
No, and yes. If it's not a pipe/fifo then you don't get the
EOF-only-when-no-possible-writers-remain behavior. TCP and UDP
sockets don't show this sort of behavior either. So AFAICS we
really need a named pipe, ie, socket.
We could maybe do something approximately similar with TCP connection
attempts (per the prior suggestion of letting backends hold the
postmaster's listen socket open; then see if you get "connection
refused" or a timeout from trying to connect) but I don't think it'd be
as trustworthy. Simple mistakes like overly aggressive ipchains filters
would confuse this kind of test.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-06 14:55:48 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-06 14:35:20 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |