From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster locking issues. |
Date: | 1998-10-11 01:35:47 |
Message-ID: | 199810110135.VAA01425@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-11 01:45:50 | Re: [HACKERS] backslash in psql output |
Previous Message | Billy G. Allie | 1998-10-11 00:47:35 | postmaster locking issues. |