Re: fcntl(SETLK) [was Re: 2nd update on TOAST]

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Bruce and I were just talking by phone about this, and we realized that
> there is a completely different approach to making that decision: if you
> want to know whether there's an old postmaster connected to a socket
> file, try to connect to the old postmaster!  In other words, pretend to
> be a client and see if your connection attempt is answered.  (You don't
> have to try to log in, just see if you get a connection.)  This might
> also answer Peter's concern about socket files that belong to
> non-Postgres programs, although I doubt that's really a big issue.
> 
> There are some potential pitfalls here, like what if the old postmaster
> is there but overloaded?  But on the whole it seems like it might be
> a cleaner answer than fooling around with lockfiles, and certainly safer
> than relying on fcntl(SETLK) to work on a socket file.  Comments anyone?

    Like it.


Jan

-- 

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #