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

Re: AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...
Date: 2000-11-29 15:57:30
Message-ID: 27475.975513450@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> 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 ?

Not at all.  If you start two postmasters in different data directories
but with the same port number, you still have a socket-file conflict
that needs to be detected.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-11-29 16:31:12
Subject: Re: Initdb not running on beos
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-29 15:55:36
Subject: Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...

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