* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [010306 10:35] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> 
> > What about encoding the shm id in the pidfile?  Then one can just ask
> > how many processes are attached to that segment?  (if it doesn't
> > exist, one can assume all backends have exited)
> 
> Hmm ... that might actually be a pretty good idea.  A small problem is
> that the shm key isn't yet selected at the time we initially create the
> lockfile, but I can't think of any reason that we could not go back and
> append the key to the lockfile afterwards.
> 
> > you want the field 'shm_nattch'
> 
> Are there any portability problems with relying on shm_nattch to be
> available?  If not, I like this a lot...

Well it's available on FreeBSD and Solaris, I'm sure Redhat has
some deamon that resets the value to 0 periodically just for kicks
so it might not be viable... :)

Seriously, there's some dispute on the type that 'shm_nattch' is,
under Solaris it's "shmatt_t" (unsigned long afaik), under FreeBSD
it's 'short' (i should fix this. :)).

But since you're really only testing for 0'ness then it shouldn't
really be a problem.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]

In response to

• Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster at 2001-03-06 18:35:24 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster at 2001-03-06 18:57:04 from Tom Lane
• Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster at 2001-03-06 19:19:12 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew McMillan	Date: 2001-03-06 18:47:45
	Subject: Re: mailing list messages
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-03-06 18:35:24
	Subject: Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster