Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On ons, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I don't know why anyone would think that "a random number" would
>> offer any advantage here. I'd use the postmaster PID, which is
>> guaranteed to be unique across the space that you're worried about.
>> In fact, you could implement this off the existing postmaster.pid,
>> no need for any new file. What's lacking is the pg_ping protocol.
> Why not just compare pg_backend_pid() with postmaster.pid?
How's that help? pg_backend_pid isn't going to return the postmaster's
PID ... maybe we could add a new function that does return the
postmaster's PID, though.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
