| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Florent Guillaume <efgeor(at)noos(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Date: | 2001-01-28 23:06:39 |
| Message-ID: | 8456.980723199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> Explictly, yes. However, FHS says /tmp is for temporary files. Also,
> it says programs shouldn't count on data to be stored there between
> invocations. 10+ days isn't temporary...
>>
>> We aren't counting on data to be stored in /tmp "between invocations".
> Between invocations of client programs. You're using /tmp as a shared
> of stored data.
Huh? The socket and lockfile are created and held open by the
postmaster for the duration of its run. Client programs don't even know
that the lockfile is there, in fact. How can you argue that client
program lifespan has anything to do with it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-01-28 23:13:30 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Previous Message | Franck Martin | 2001-01-28 23:05:40 | Development of ISO19100 support in PG |