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

Re: [HACKERS] postmaster locking issues.

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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                        |
  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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-11 01:45:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] backslash in psql output
Previous:From: Billy G. AllieDate: 1998-10-11 00:47:35
Subject: postmaster locking issues.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group