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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Paul A Vixie||Date: 1998-10-11 08:59:34|
|Subject: Re: inet/cidr/bind|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-10-11 05:31:10|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] select * from ..;vacuum crashes|