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

Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

From: teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 23:43:51
Message-ID: xuysnm3xmx4.fsf@halden.devel.redhat.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> 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?

Nothing but the postmaster uses it? If so, there shouldn't be a
problem moving it.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-01-28 23:54:18
Subject: Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone
Previous:From: Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=Date: 2001-01-28 23:37:39
Subject: Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

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