From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Florent Guillaume <efgeor(at)noos(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
Date: | 2001-01-27 20:25:31 |
Message-ID: | 22787.980627131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I understand why the socket needs to be in /tmp, but why the lockfile?
It would probably be better if the socket files weren't in /tmp but in
a postgres-owned directory. However, at this point we have a huge
backwards compatibility problem to overcome if we want to move the
socket files. The location of the socket files is essentially a core
part of the frontend-backend protocol, because both client and server
must know it ab initio. Move the socket, break your clients.
There is an option in 7.1 to support defining a different directory
for the socket files, but I doubt very many people will use it.
I see no real good reason to keep the lockfiles in a different place
from the sockets themselves, however. Doing so would just complicate
things even more, without adding any real safety or security.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2001-01-27 22:05:05 | Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-27 19:58:59 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |