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: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.