""Magnus Hagander"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > > > 1. Backend crash while postmaster stays alive: postmaster > > will get to execute the on_shmem_exit() callback after all > > the backends are gone, and that can clean 'em up. > > > > 2. postmaster crashes: we'd like the semas to go away > > automatically when the last backend goes away. If this > > doesn't happen, then there has to be logic to recycle > > leftover semas when the postmaster is next started. > > > > Most of the ugliness in sysv_sema.c is because it has to do "manual" > > cleanup per #2. > > > > For #2, yes, the semaphores will go away when the last process holding a > HANDLE to it goes away. For #1, the code seems to handle that right? >
I intentionally use *unnamed* semaphores to avoid these problems -- even if the semaphores didn't go away (as Magus pointed out, if all processes can exit gracefully, this won't happen), we won't worry about them -- Creating semahpores will still succeed because there is no existent same named semaphores will bother it. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
