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

Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...
Date: 2000-11-29 15:55:36
Message-ID: 27454.975513336@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> writes:
> Surely the lock file could easily go somewhere other than
> /tmp, since it won't be breaking existing setups?

Such as where?

Given the fact that the recent UUNET patch allows the DBA to put the
socket files anywhere, it seems simplest to say that the lockfiles go
in the same directory as the socket files.  Anything else is going to
be mighty confusing and probably unworkable.  For example, it's not
a good idea to say we'll use a fixed directory for lockfiles regardless
of where the socket file is --- that would prevent people from starting
multiple postmasters with the same logical port number and different
socket directories, something that's really perfectly reasonable (at
least in UUNET's view of the world ;-)).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-29 15:57:30
Subject: Re: AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...
Previous:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-11-29 15:43:26
Subject: Re: How to use nested select statements

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