Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070514125637.GE20472@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:50:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Uh ... so the lock-file stuff is completely broken on Windows? > > Not so much broken as commented out ... on looking at the code, it's > blindingly obvious that we don't even try to create a socket lock file > if not HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS. Sigh. > > There is a related risk even on Unix machines: two postmasters can be > started on the same port number if they have different settings of > unix_socket_directory, and then it's indeterminate which one you will > contact if you connect to the TCP port. I seem to recall that we > discussed this several years ago, and didn't really find a satisfactory > way of interlocking the TCP port per se. If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing. Worth doing? //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: