Re: [HACKERS] pid file for postmaster?
От | Tim Holloway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pid file for postmaster? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 383D6497.6FD95CE8@southeast.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pid file for postmaster? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
You are quite correct. They assume that there will be one and only one postmaster, which may be started or stopped at runlevel switch or manually via /etc/rc.d/init.d/postmaster stop|start|restart Similar systems have made PIDfiles like: /var/run/postgres/5432 Which would get around the single-postmaster limitation and allow you to make postgres own the PID directory. Whether this has traversal-rights issues or not, I don't know. Red Hat control starts the postmaster as an 'su' process from root, and they may do the WRITING of the PIDfile from that account. Tom Lane wrote: > > Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> writes: > > Red Hat ALREADY creates a file "postmaster.pid" in the /var/lock directory. > > If they did it just like that, then they broke the ability to run more > than one postmaster on the same machine. Also, there is the question > of what the permissions are on /var/lock. If they're tight then postgres > can't be an ordinary unprivileged user, which is bad. If they're loose > then anyone can come along and cause trouble by fiddling with the lock > files. > > There was considerable discussion of this whole area last year in > pg-hackers (check the thread "flock patch breaks things here" and > related threads starting in late Aug. 1998). We were focusing mostly > on the use of lockfiles to ensure that one didn't accidentally start > two postmasters in the same database dir and/or with the same port > number; but if the lockfiles contain PIDs then of course they can also > serve as a contact point for a signal-sender. > > Tatsuo, if you have forgotten that discussion you may want to go back > and re-read it. > > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: