Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> What happens if someone launches version 8.3.3 postgres.exe and version >>> 8.3.4 postgres.exe at the same time, on the same data directory? Will >>> the interlock that prevents two postmasters from starting at the same >>> time work? > >> Hmm. Didn't think of that :( > >> Yeah, it seems that that part of it would fail. In a lot of cases you'd >> still get kicked off by socket conflicts and such, but the shared memory >> part would not notice someone is already there, no. > >> Not sure if it's reason enough to revert - since it fixes other cases. I >> guess in theory we could check both the old and the new name, but that's >> going to be a considerably more complex patch. > > According to what you just told me, the original coding is storing the > name in a "local namespace", which presumably means it won't conflict > anyway. Ergo, the existing coding is simply broken and there's nothing > we can do about it.
Local namespace = Session local, not process local. So it would properly protect against two processes started in the same session. One session is, for example, an interactive login. But not if they were started by different users, since they'd be in different sessions. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
