Re: fcntl(SETLK) [was Re: 2nd update on TOAST]

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce and I were just talking by phone about this, and we realized that
> there is a completely different approach to making that decision: if you
> want to know whether there's an old postmaster connected to a socket
> file, try to connect to the old postmaster! In other words, pretend to
> be a client and see if your connection attempt is answered. (You don't
> have to try to log in, just see if you get a connection.) This might
> also answer Peter's concern about socket files that belong to
> non-Postgres programs, although I doubt that's really a big issue.
>
> There are some potential pitfalls here, like what if the old postmaster
> is there but overloaded? But on the whole it seems like it might be
> a cleaner answer than fooling around with lockfiles, and certainly safer
> than relying on fcntl(SETLK) to work on a socket file. Comments anyone?

Like it.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #