Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:02:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > >>Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>>If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on > >>>the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since > >>>we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global > >>>namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing. > >>> > >>Does it go away automatically on postmaster crash? > > > >Yes. > > Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety > measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code > involved will be quite small.
Do you actually mean 8.2 here? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
