On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:10:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > I'm thinking to preserve postmaster.pid at immediate shutdown in all > > released > > versions, but I'm less sure about back-patching a change to make > > PGSharedMemoryCreate() pickier. On the one hand, allowing startup to > > proceed > > with backends still active in the same data directory is a corruption > > hazard. > > On the other hand, it could break weird shutdown/restart patterns that > > permit > > trivial lifespan overlap between backends of different postmasters. > > Opinions? > > I'm more sanguine about the second change than the first. Leaving > postmaster.pid around seems like a clear user-visible behavior change > that could break user scripts or have other consequences that we don't > foresee; thus, I would vote against back-patching it. Indeed, I'm not > sure it's a good idea to do that even in master. On the other hand, > tightening the checks in PGSharedMemoryCreate() seems very much worth > doing, and I think it might also be safe enough to back-patch.
Were these changes every applied? I don't see them. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
