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

Re: Win32 semaphore patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Win32 semaphore patch
Date: 2006-04-21 06:04:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> Maybe I missed the point here: If we really run out of kernel resources, I
> don't think we can do much even with named semaphores - because the resource
> leaked may not belong to any Postgres processes and we can't clean them up.

It's certainly not our business to defend the kernel against misbehavior
of other applications.  But IMHO it *is* our business to defend against
our own misbehavior.  Postgres should not be the weakest link.

Note I am not saying there's anything wrong with the code you posted;
based on discussion to date it seems to be solid.  What I am taking
issue with is the attitude you seem to have that it's not our problem
if we leak resources.  It is our problem.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2006-04-21 07:26:43
Subject: Re: Win32 semaphore patch
Previous:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2006-04-21 03:29:45
Subject: Re: Win32 semaphore patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group