"Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it wasn't just two views pointing at each other (it would, of
> course, be next to impossible to even create those, unless you hand
> tweaked the system tables), but I think was a view-relies-on-a-
> function-relies-on-a-view kind of problem.
> Ah, I see why the data-directory interlock file wasn't helping: it
> wasn't checked until *after* shared memory was set up (read clobbered
> :-(). This was not a very bright choice. I'm still surprised that
> the shared-memory reset should've trashed your database so thoroughly,
> though.
>
>
"Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 25 Nov 2000, at 17:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ugh. The reason that removing the socket file allowed a second
>> postmaster to start up is that we use an advisory lock on the socket
>> file as the interlock that prevents two PMs on the same port number.
>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:05:40AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, we've talked before about moving the socket files to someplace
> >> safer than /tmp. The problem is to find another place that's not
> >> platform-dependent --- else you've got a major c
Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, we've talked before about moving the socket files to someplace
>> safer than /tmp. The problem is to find another place that's not
>> platform-dependent --- else you've got a major configuration headache.
> Could this be described in e.g. /etc/pos
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 07:41:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Actually, this turns out to be similar to what you wrote in
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/1998-08/msg00835.html
>
> Well, we've talked before about moving the socket
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we could name the socket file .s.PGSQL.port.pid and make
> .s.PGSQL.port a symlink. Then you can find out whether the postmaster
> that created the file is still running.
Or just create a lockfile /tmp/.s.PGSQL.port#.lock, ie, same name as
soc
Tom Lane writes:
> There is a related issue on my todo list, though --- didn't we find out
> awhile back that some older Linux kernels crash and burn if one attempts
> to get an advisory lock on a socket file? (See thread 7/6/00) Were we
> going to fix that, and if so how? Or will we just tell
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001125 16:37]:
>> This story does indicate that we need a less fragile interlock against
>> starting two postmasters on one database. I have to admit that it
>> hadn't occurred to me that you could break the port-number
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001125 16:37]:
> "Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> This story does indicate that we need a less fragile interlock against
> starting two postmasters on one database. I have to admit that it
> hadn't occurred to me that you could break the port-number i
10 matches
Mail list logo
