Re: postmaster.pid - Mailing list pgsql-hackers-win32

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: postmaster.pid
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE475B3D@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers-win32
>I've occasionally thought about abandoning the PID test, in favor of
>relying completely on the shmem-existence test.  If the shmem segment
>named in the lockfile doesn't exist or has zero processes connected to
>it, we could safely assume that the original postmaster is gone.
>(If it has processes connected, we must abort anyway, to cover the case
>where the postmaster crashed but backends remain alive.)  The risk here
>is that we are then *completely* at the mercy of the OS having
>a correct
>emulation of the SysV shmem semantics, in particular the ability to
>detect whether a shmem segment has other processes connected to it.
>I'm not sure whether this is true on all the supported platforms.
>(This being the win32 list: what about Windows?)

You can try to attach to a segment if it exists. Or create a new one. It
goes away automatically when the last process referring it goes away.
(we're just doing named mmap of the pagefile). Not sure if the shmem
emualation is 100% complete on that, but it sure can be made so.

//Magnus

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date:

Previous
From: Luis Rodrigues
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 release warning
Next
From: Oleg Letsinsky
Date:
Subject: 8.0 beta1 and XP SP2