Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports
Date
Msg-id 19510.1020725998@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports  ("Igor Kovalenko" <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Igor Kovalenko" <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> writes:
>> Could we get away with saying that the Unix-socket-less platforms have
>> weaker protection against mistakenly restarting the postmaster?

> Why can't we use named pipe (aka FIFO file) instead of UDS?

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

> Another thought is, why can't we use bind() to the postmaster port to detect
> other postmasters?

Because port number and data directory are independent parameters.  The
interlock on port number is not related to the interlock on data
directory.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers
Next
From: Ryan Bradetich
Date:
Subject: Re: a couple of minor itches: RI Trigger Names, and