From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
Date: | 2004-08-25 13:58:56 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE475B25@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> > But sure, we don't really care if it's a postmaster. Then
> > OpenProcess() is probably the best way, yes.
>
> Au contraire!! One of the problems with the Unix
> implementation is that you *can't* tell for sure if the
> target process is a postmaster. See past discussions about
> how startup occasionally fails because we get fooled by the
> PID mentioned in postmaster.pid now belonging to pg_ctl or
> some other Postgres-owned process.
>
> This is a place where the Windows version can actually be
> better than the Unix one. Please fix it and stop imagining
> that your charter is to duplicate a particular Unix syscall
> bug-for-bug.
Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted that. But
then let's go with the
send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-08-25 14:21:32 | Re: postmaster.pid |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-25 13:58:03 | Re: postmaster.pid |