From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Heikki Linnakangas'" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Plugging fd leaks (was Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication) |
Date: | 2012-11-26 15:04:10 |
Message-ID: | 11172.1353942250@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm, if it's just for locking purposes, how about using a lwlock or a
>> heavy-weight lock instead?
> Its not only for lock, the main idea is that we create temp file and write
> modified configuration in that temp file.
> In end if it's success, then we rename temp file to .conf file but if it
> error out then at abort we need to delete temp file.
> So in short, main point is to close/rename the file in case of success (at
> end of command) and remove in case of abort.
I'd go with the TRY/CATCH solution. It would be worth extending the
fd.c infrastructure if there were multiple users of the feature, but
there are not, nor do I see likely new candidates on the horizon.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-26 15:12:10 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-11-26 14:46:33 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |