From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Date: | 2007-05-14 12:56:37 |
Message-ID: | 20070514125637.GE20472@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 13:02:10 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 12:50:54 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |