Re: postmaster.pid
От | Medi Montaseri |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postmaster.pid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3E2D964F.2030103@intransa.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postmaster.pid (Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
I validate my pid by examining /proc/pid , something as simple as if [ -d `cat postmaster.pid` ] then echo postmaster is running else echo postmaster is not running fi Tom Lane wrote: >Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes: > > >>Tom Lane wrote: >> >> >>>Yeah, if you search the archives you will find previous discussions of >>>how the check for a pre-existing postmaster could be made more resistant >>>to false matches. It seems to be a hard problem to solve in a way >>>that's both portable and 100% safe (while false positives are annoying, >>>false negatives are completely not acceptable). AFAIR all the >>>alternative methods that we've heard about have their own downsides. >>> >>> > > > >>I assume one of those alternatives was for the postmaster to open and >>lock a predefined file in $PGDATA (say, postmaster.lock) using fcntl >>or flock style locking? >> >> > >Yes, that was discussed. I think the primary objection was that it's >very non-robust if the $PGDATA directory is mounted via NFS. (Quite >a few of us think that if you run a database over NFS, you deserve to >lose ;-( ... but there seem to be more than a few people out there doing >it anyway.) > >Also, the fact that you even had to mention two different ways of doing >it is prima facie evidence that there are portability issues... > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: