Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone
От | Lamar Owen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3A751F3B.87CD1969@wgcr.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > How does netstat find out? > netstat burrows around in kernel datastructures, is how. > I don't see invoking netstat as a solution anyway. For one thing, > it's drastically nonstandard; even if available, it varies in parameters I said as much as it wasn't portable. But I asked also if a portable way was available -- I do not currently know that answer to that, but I will be investigating such. > (Please recall that one of the motivations > for the UUNET patch was to allow multiple postmasters running with the > same port number in different subdirectories. Hmm, I wonder how netstat > shows socketfiles that are in chroot'd subtrees, or outside your own > chroot ...) When were these 'UUNET' patches issued? I like the idea, but just curious. I don't recall them, in fact -- nor do I recall the discussion. I'll look it up in the archives later. Going to bed after a night of RPM'ing. As to the chroot vs netstat question, that is a good one. I have no chroot's in effect, so I can't test that one. So, if multiple postmasters are running on the same port in different dirs, it would be somewhat difficult to determine which should be the 'default' in the list. However, one would think an admin who has set up a multiple postmaster system of that sort wouldn't be relying on a default anyway -- but that is a dangerous assumption. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: