| From: | Antti Haapala <antti(dot)haapala(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On file locking |
| Date: | 2003-02-03 10:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.44.0302031225580.8837-100000@paju.oulu.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That same documentation mentions that locks acquired using flock()
> will *not* invoke the mandatory lock semantics even if on a file
> marked for it, so I guess flock() isn't implemented on top of fcntl()
> in Linux.
They're not. And there's another difference between fcntl and flock in
Linux: although fork(2) states that file locks are not inherited, locks
made by flock are inherited to children and they keep the lock even when
the parent process is killed with SIGKILL. Tested this.
Just see man syscall, there exists both
flock(2)
and
fcntl(2)
--
Antti Haapala
+358 50 369 3535
ICQ: #177673735
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Igor Georgiev | 2003-02-03 11:29:27 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |
| Previous Message | Þórhallur Hálfdánarson | 2003-02-03 09:13:43 | psql: Prompt change |