| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Date: | 2004-08-25 13:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | 19710.1093442283@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> But sure, we don't really care if it's a postmaster. Then OpenProcess()
> is probably the best way, yes.
Au contraire!! One of the problems with the Unix implementation is that
you *can't* tell for sure if the target process is a postmaster. See
past discussions about how startup occasionally fails because we get
fooled by the PID mentioned in postmaster.pid now belonging to pg_ctl or
some other Postgres-owned process.
This is a place where the Windows version can actually be better than
the Unix one. Please fix it and stop imagining that your charter is to
duplicate a particular Unix syscall bug-for-bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-08-25 13:58:56 | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-25 13:53:49 | Re: postmaster.pid |