On Thursday 25 May 2006 14:35, korry wrote: > > That's not workable, unless you want to assume that nothing on the > > system except Postgres uses SysV semaphores. Otherwise something else > > could randomly gobble up the semid you want to use. I don't care very > > much for requiring a distinct semid to be hand-specified for each > > postmaster on a machine, either. > > Yeah, that does suck. Ok, naming problems seem to make semaphores > useless. > > I'm back to byte-range locking, but if NFS is important and is truly > unreliable, then that's out too. > > I've never had locking problems on NFS (probably because we tell our > users not to use NFS), but now that I think about it, SMB locking is > very unreliable so Win32 would be an issue too.
What I don't get is why everybody think that because one solution doesn't fit all needs on all platforms(or NFS), it shouldn't be implemented on those platforms it *does* work on. Why can't those platforms(like Linux) benefit from a better solution, if one exists? There are plenty of examples of software providing better solutions on platforms supporting more features. -- Andreas Joseph Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Software Developer / Manager gpg public_key: http://dev.officenet.no/~andreak/public_key.asc ------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ OfficeNet AS | The most difficult thing in the world is to | Hoffsveien 17 | know how to do a thing and to watch | PO. Box 425 Skøyen | somebody else doing it wrong, without | 0213 Oslo | comment. | NORWAY | | Phone : +47 22 13 01 00 | | Direct: +47 22 13 10 03 | | Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | | ------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
