Re: semaphore usage "port based"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Date
Msg-id 20060403195018.GG4474@ns.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: semaphore usage "port based"?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> BTW, Marc, it occurs to me that a workaround for you would be to create
> a separate userid for postgres to run under in each jail; then the
> regular protection mechanisms would prevent the different postmasters
> from interfering with each others' semaphore sets.  But I think that
> workaround just makes it even clearer that the jail mechanism isn't
> behaving very sanely.

Just to toss it in there, I do this on some systems where we use Linux
VServers.  It's just so that when I'm looking at a process list across
the whole system it's easy to tell which processes are inside which
vservers (since the only thing which should be running in a given
vserver is a single Postgres instance which should only be running with
the uid/gid corresponding to that vserver, and that uid/gid is recorded
in the host passwd file with a name associated with it since that's the
passwd file used when looking at all pids).

I also just double-checked with the Linux VServer folks and they confirm
that IPC inside the vserver are isolated from all the other IPCs on the
system.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Wheeler
Date:
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Which Binary?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: semaphore usage "port based"?