Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

> 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.

But do we yank it out for that reason?  I don't think so.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026