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


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org,Max Dunn <mdunn(at)xythos(dot)com>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2004-08-24 15:59:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I think we're on the wrong track here. If there is a pid file then the 
> postmaster will try to see if the process is running by calling 
> kill(pid,0) - see backend/utils/init/miscinit.c.

> However, on Windows we simulate kill(), and always return EINVAL if the 
> signal <= 0 (see port/kill.c).

That's clearly broken.  Should you not send the zero signal the same way
as other signals, and just let the recipient ignore it?  (This assumes
that the pre-existing postmaster is accessible to a would-be new
postmaster's kill ... is that true?)

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-08-24 16:02:17
Subject: Re: Postgresql 8.0 beta 1 - strange cpu usage statistics and slow
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2004-08-24 15:59:18
Subject: Re:

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