From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Date: | 2007-05-14 15:43:30 |
Message-ID: | 12264.1179157410@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Um, you're right, I hadn't done the test properly. If I have an open
>> psql session across TCP and do pg_ctl stop -m fast, then I can't
>> start a new postmaster until the socket goes out of CLOSE_WAIT state.
>> Which, if I just leave the psql session sit there, seems to mean
>> "indefinitely" ... so it's even worse than just a TCP timeout.
> That's still not quite right. Are you running the client and server on the
> same machine?
Yeah. The behavior might well be different if they're on different
machines ... but it's moot in any case, since the point is that without
SO_REUSEADDR we have at least an exposure to a TCP-timeout delay before
being able to start a new postmaster.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-14 16:39:08 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-14 15:38:24 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |