From: | Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster locking issues. |
Date: | 1998-10-11 08:47:31 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.96.981011094538.496x-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > After looking into the issue of using PID file locks vs. flock/unlock, I have
> > come to the following conclusions:
> >
> > 1. It is generally agreed that a PID lock file should replace the current me-
> > thod of locking (fcntl based locking). (See the message thread with
> > '[HACKERS] flock patch breaks things here' in the subject).
> >
> > 2. The purpose of the lock file is to prevent multiple postmasters from run-
> > ning on the same port and database.
> >
> > 3. Two PID files will be necessary, one to prevent mulitple instances of post-
> > masters from running against the same data base, and one to prevent
> > multiple
> > instances from using the same port.
> >
> > 4. The database lock will be located in the DATA directory being locked.
> >
> > 5. The port lock will be kept in '/var/opt/pgsql/lock/'.
>
> Yes, except lock file should be kept in /tmp. I don't have
> /var/opt/..., and I doubt others do either.
My RedHat system doesn't have /var/opt either. I'd agree with /tmp as
that's been in every unix style system I've used so far.
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul A Vixie | 1998-10-11 08:59:34 | Re: inet/cidr/bind |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-11 05:31:10 | Re: [HACKERS] select * from ..;vacuum crashes |