From: | Medi Montaseri <medi(dot)montaseri(at)intransa(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
Date: | 2003-01-21 18:49:51 |
Message-ID: | 3E2D964F.2030103@intransa.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I validate my pid by examining /proc/pid , something as simple as
if [ -d `cat postmaster.pid` ]
then
echo postmaster is running
else
echo postmaster is not running
fi
Tom Lane wrote:
>Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, if you search the archives you will find previous discussions of
>>>how the check for a pre-existing postmaster could be made more resistant
>>>to false matches. It seems to be a hard problem to solve in a way
>>>that's both portable and 100% safe (while false positives are annoying,
>>>false negatives are completely not acceptable). AFAIR all the
>>>alternative methods that we've heard about have their own downsides.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>I assume one of those alternatives was for the postmaster to open and
>>lock a predefined file in $PGDATA (say, postmaster.lock) using fcntl
>>or flock style locking?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, that was discussed. I think the primary objection was that it's
>very non-robust if the $PGDATA directory is mounted via NFS. (Quite
>a few of us think that if you run a database over NFS, you deserve to
>lose ;-( ... but there seem to be more than a few people out there doing
>it anyway.)
>
>Also, the fact that you even had to mention two different ways of doing
>it is prima facie evidence that there are portability issues...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | samira | 2003-01-21 19:51:11 | plpgsql question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-21 18:48:50 | Re: PL/Python |