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

Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...

From: Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse...
Date: 2000-11-29 13:13:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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: mlwDate: 2000-11-29 13:26:16
Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Previous:From: Matthew KirkwoodDate: 2000-11-29 13:09:05
Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

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