| From: | teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 23:43:51 |
| Message-ID: | xuysnm3xmx4.fsf@halden.devel.redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 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?
Nothing but the postmaster uses it? If so, there shouldn't be a
problem moving it.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-28 23:54:18 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2001-01-28 23:37:39 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |