Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...
Date: 2000-11-29 08:46:18
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368158@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> BTW, it also seems like a good idea to reorder the postmaster's
> startup operations so that the data-directory lockfile is checked
> before trying to acquire the port lockfile, instead of after.  That
> way, in the common scenario where you're trying to start a second
> postmaster in the same directory + same port, it'd fail cleanly
> even if /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432.lock had disappeared.

Fine, sounds like reordering would eliminate the need for the socket lock 
anyway, no ?

Andreas

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Horst HerbDate: 2000-11-29 08:51:43
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-11-29 05:16:34
Subject: Re: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group