X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551D93CCA3A for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:17:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34205-03 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:17:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp110.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp110.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.8]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CE243B77BD for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:17:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from unknown (HELO jupiter.black-lion.info) (janwieck@68.80.245.191 with login) by smtp110.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2004 16:17:31 -0000 Received: from [172.21.8.18] ([192.168.192.101]) (authenticated bits=0) by jupiter.black-lion.info (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBHGHSL3003393; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:17:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from JanWieck@Yahoo.com) Message-ID: <41C306A1.1070807@Yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:17:37 -0500 From: Jan Wieck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Lechtenboerger Cc: Greg Stark , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Lost updates vs resumable connections/transactions References: <41C06961.8020406@Yahoo.com> <87is73qrde.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> <41C1CE7A.10405@Yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.324 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200412/29 X-Sequence-Number: 5199 On 12/17/2004 8:45 AM, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote: > [...] > When the connection is resumed, the postmaster creates a new socket > with the (new) Apache process (just as you described above), gets > the ID, informs the backend, and passes the new socket with > sendmsg(2) to the backend which gets it with recvmsg(2). (I have > never passed sockets like this; I just read that it should work.) > Now the backend can continue the existing transaction with the new > Apache process. > > Or not? Yes, that would work ... on some but not all Unix derivates ... what about those where it does not? I know that Windows has a similar functionality available, but that would AFAIK require to use windows messages, which in turn requires to have a window handle for each and every backend, a rather dramatic change. The PostgreSQL team members (me included) are big fans of portability. Introducing code that solves a problem for one specific web server, in the special case of a small number of application users, in a non portable way for only a couple operating systems and where the resulting functional difference is visible to the database client ... I don't think this idea has much of a chance to make it into the source tree. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #