korry wrote:
> > > You never need to reduce it to a shared lock. On postmaster startup,
> > > try to lock the sentinel byte (one byte past the end-of-file). If you
> > > can lock it, you know that no other postmaster has that byte locked. If
> > > you can't lock it, another postmaster is running. It is an atomic
> > > operation.
> >
> > This doesn't work if the postmaster dies but a backend continues to run,
> > which is arguably the most important case we need to protect against.
>
> I may be confused here, but I don't see the problem - byte-range locks
> are not inherited across a fork. A backend would never hold the lock, a
> backend would never even look for the lock.
Well, you are wrong here. We _want_ every backend to hold a shared
lock. We need to stop a postmaster from starting if there is a backend
running that was started by a no-longer-running postmaster.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
