| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
| Date: | 2010-08-11 15:48:37 |
| Message-ID: | 6634.1281541717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that "a random number" would
>> offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which is
>> guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried about.
>> In fact, you could implement this off the existing postmaster.pid,
>> no need for any new file. What's lacking is the pg_ping protocol.
> Why not just compare pg_backend_pid() with postmaster.pid?
How's that help? pg_backend_pid isn't going to return the postmaster's
PID ... maybe we could add a new function that does return the
postmaster's PID, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-11 15:49:43 | Re: assertions and constraint triggers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-11 15:48:26 | Re: Inconsistent ::bit(N) and get_bit()? |