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

Re: Status of ipcclean

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Status of ipcclean
Date: 2001-08-28 15:38:39
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0108281736300.699-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> I believe that ipcclean is no longer needed for preparing to start a new
> postmaster.  It might possibly be useful if you wanted to clean up after
> a dead postmaster that you did *not* intend to restart.
>
> However, given the lack of portability and lack of robustness of the
> script (including inability to deal with multiple-postmaster
> situations), I think I'd vote for removing it altogether.

Can other people voice their opinions what to do with ipcclean?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-08-28 16:34:16
Subject: Re: libpq++ current sources don't compile with older C++ compilers
Previous:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2001-08-28 15:35:06
Subject: Re: Upcoming events

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