From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 22:49:36 -0400
Message-ID: <5432.907642176@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.02.9810051428510.29733-100000@hub.org>
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> I can commit those changes tonight if I have the go-ahead. Or I can
>> wait till post-6.4. Your call.
> Go for it...that will at least get them off the list...
OK, the NOTIFY rewrite is checked in. We'll see what breaks, if
anything.
>> flock is a release stopper as far as I'm concerned, because the backend
>> *does not compile* on my platform without diking out that code.
Actually, it looks like Vadim replaced the flock() call with fcntl() a
few weeks ago, and I'd not noticed because I had a locally modified copy
of pqcomm.c. I don't know if fcntl(F_SETLK) is any more portable than
flock() --- it compiles on my platform, where flock() didn't, but that
proves little. So I went ahead and put in an autoconf test, only
checking for fcntl(F_SETLK) rather than flock(). I still think the
process-pid-in-a-textfile approach to locking is safer, but we can
leave that for the next release.
That's two items off the must-fix list and onto the are-there-bugs?
list...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, scrappy@hub.org, hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items
In-Reply-To: <5432.907642176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox