Re: postmaster.pid

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  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