"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > "Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > Except that eventually you run the kernel out of resources. We were > forced to confront that point very early when dealing with the SysV > API, because of the remarkably low resource limits it traditionally > has, but long-term resource leaks are never a good idea in any software. > > Or are you designing this according to the widespread view that Windows > system uptimes are measured in small numbers of days anyway? >
/* BTW: I should use "evently" instead of "gracefully" in the above sentence. */ Maybe I missed the point here: If we really run out of kernel resources, I don't think we can do much even with named semaphores - because the resource leaked may not belong to any Postgres processes and we can't clean them up. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org