Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid

> On Wednesday 24 May 2006 21:03, korry wrote:
> > > I'm sure there's a good reason for having it the way it is, having so
> > > many smart knowledgeable people working on this project. Could someone
> > > please explain the rationale of the current solution to me?
> >
> > We've ignored Andreas' original question. Why not use a lock to
> > indicate that the postmaster is still running? At first blush, that
> > seems more reliable than checking for a (possibly recycled) process ID.
>
> As Tom replied: Portability.

Thanks - I missed that part of Tom's message.

The only platform (although certainly not a minor issue) that I can
think of that would have a portability issue would be Win32. You can't
even read a locked byte in Win32. I usually solve that problem by
locking a byte past the end of the file (which is portable).

Is there some other portability issue that I'm missing?

-- Korry