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

Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, 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: 2001-01-28 23:06:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> Explictly, yes. However, FHS says /tmp is for temporary files. Also,
> it says programs shouldn't count on data to be stored there between
> invocations. 10+ days isn't temporary...
>> We aren't counting on data to be stored in /tmp "between invocations".

> Between invocations of client programs. You're using /tmp as a shared
> of stored data.

Huh?  The socket and lockfile are created and held open by the
postmaster for the duration of its run.  Client programs don't even know
that the lockfile is there, in fact.  How can you argue that client
program lifespan has anything to do with it?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2001-01-28 23:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone
Previous:From: Franck MartinDate: 2001-01-28 23:05:40
Subject: Development of ISO19100 support in PG

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