From: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
Date: | 2006-04-03 18:22:23 |
Message-ID: | A1072D0B-7416-493C-8CCC-C9126134A9B3@khera.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> semaphore keys on each cycle of life, so you'd have to get fooled by
> chance coincidence of existing PIDs every time over many cycles to
> have a severe resource-leakage problem. (BTW, Marc, that's the reason
> for *not* randomizing the key selection as you suggested.)
Seems to me the way around this with minimal fuss is to add a flag to
postgres to have it start at different points in the ID sequence.
So pg#1 would start at first position, pg#2 second ID position, etc.
then just hard-code an "instance ID" into the startup script for each
pg. No randomization make it easier to debug, and unique IDs make it
avoid clashes under normal cases.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-03 19:42:51 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-04-03 18:17:01 | Feature list for SQL:2003 |