| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Date: | 2007-05-14 12:50:54 |
| Message-ID: | 8696.1179147054@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Uh ... so the lock-file stuff is completely broken on Windows?
Not so much broken as commented out ... on looking at the code, it's
blindingly obvious that we don't even try to create a socket lock file
if not HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS. Sigh.
There is a related risk even on Unix machines: two postmasters can be
started on the same port number if they have different settings of
unix_socket_directory, and then it's indeterminate which one you will
contact if you connect to the TCP port. I seem to recall that we
discussed this several years ago, and didn't really find a satisfactory
way of interlocking the TCP port per se.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-05-14 12:56:37 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-14 12:32:26 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |