Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15243.974160702@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > What happened to the concerns that were raised? The socket file is a lock > file, you cannot just move it around. Good point. IIRC, we rely on the socket file lock to ensure that you can't start two postmasters with the same port number. (If both are started with -i, then you'll get a conflict on the IP port address, but if one or both is started without, then the socket-file lock is the only line of defense.) This is important because shared memory keys are derived from the port number. I'm not sure that the code will behave in a pleasant manner when two postmasters try to use the same shared memory block --- most likely, death and destruction will ensue. I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue. But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully dangerous. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: