On Wednesday 24 May 2006 21:03, korry wrote: > > I'm sure there's a good reason for having it the way it is, having so > > many smart knowledgeable people working on this project. Could someone > > please explain the rationale of the current solution to me? > > We've ignored Andreas' original question. Why not use a lock to > indicate that the postmaster is still running? At first blush, that > seems more reliable than checking for a (possibly recycled) process ID. As Tom replied: Portability.
Thanks - I missed that part of Tom's message.
The only platform (although certainly not a minor issue) that I can think of that would have a portability issue would be Win32. You can't even read a locked byte in Win32. I usually solve that problem by locking a byte past the end of the file (which is portable).
Is there some other portability issue that I'm missing?
-- Korry
