On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> That is, if the socket file name is /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432, we'd create a
> plain file /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432.lock
> I can only think of one scenario where this is worse than what we have
> now: if someone is running a /tmp-directory-sweeper that is bright
> enough not to remove socket files, it would still zap the interlock
> file, thus potentially allowing a second postmaster to take over the
> socket file. This doesn't seem like a mainstream problem though.
Surely the lock file could easily go somewhere other than
/tmp, since it won't be breaking existing setups?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: mlw||Date: 2000-11-29 13:26:16|
|Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?|
|Previous:||From: Matthew Kirkwood||Date: 2000-11-29 13:09:05|
|Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ? |