Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > What happened to the concerns that were raised? The socket file is a lock
> > file, you cannot just move it around.
>
> Good point. IIRC, we rely on the socket file lock to ensure that you
> can't start two postmasters with the same port number. (If both are
> started with -i, then you'll get a conflict on the IP port address,
> but if one or both is started without, then the socket-file lock is
> the only line of defense.) This is important because shared memory
> keys are derived from the port number. I'm not sure that the code
> will behave in a pleasant manner when two postmasters try to use the
> same shared memory block --- most likely, death and destruction will
> ensue.
>
> I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared
> memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue.
> But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully
> dangerous.

But do we yank it out for that reason? I don't think so.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026