Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> >> I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in
> >> postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We
> >> could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line.
>
> No. If it goes in, it should go in as the third line. The shmem key
> data is private to the server --- we do not want external programs
> assuming anything at all about the private part of postmaster.pid.
OK, so you are suggesting having it as a third value on the third line?
10231
/u/pgsql/data
5432001 45481984 port_here
^^^^^^^^^
I like that better because it simplifies the test and limits the
possibility of non-atomic multi-line writes. For Win32, we would just
have the port number because the line is normally empty.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
