| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/doc/TODO.detail (alpha default distinct flock fsync function limit null pg_shadow primary) |
| Date: | 2000-07-05 00:12:15 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0007042325530.3542-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> but if one or both postmasters is started without -i then there's got
> to be some interlock on the Unix socket file.
>
> I don't much like depending on flock for that, since it isn't available
> everywhere. The only portable answer is to build a pid-containing
> interlock file for each socket file, as discussed in the TODO item.
But the flock code isn't used because the configure test for it is broken,
and has been broken ever since it was introduced AFAICT. It seems that we
have been relying on the mere existence of the socket file.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-05 00:25:53 | Re: Memory-context slinging |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-07-04 19:58:06 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/doc/TODO.detail (alpha default distinct flock fsync function limit null pg_shadow primary) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-07-05 00:12:24 | Re: Changes to handling version numbers internally |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-07-05 00:11:53 | Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable? |