Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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? See the prior discussion in the archives. We started with that and found problems, to which Tom suggested a random number as the best solution. Let's at least start any further discussion informed by what's gone before; if there was a flaw in the reasoning, please point that out. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
