From: | Jules Bean <jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Travis Bauer <trbauer(at)cs(dot)indiana(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Error with tcp/ip networking |
Date: | 2000-08-31 09:02:54 |
Message-ID: | 20000831100254.B24680@grommit.office.vi.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 01:33:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Travis Bauer" <trbauer(at)cs(dot)indiana(dot)edu> writes:
> > I'm getting:
> > FATAL: StreamServerPort: bind() failed: Address already in use
> > Is another postmaster already running on that port?
> > If not, wait a few seconds and retry.
>
> > when I use postmaster with the -i option. Yes, I already deleted the
> > /tmp/?????.5432 files. When I run postmaster without -i, it works fine, but
> > no tcp/ip access.
>
> Well, the /tmp files are for non-TCP (Unix socket) communication, so
> they're not relevant to this failure. The postmaster is complaining
> because it can't get ownership of the 5432 TCP port number. I'm betting
> that you have another postmaster process still hanging around, or else
> (much less likely, but possible) some unrelated program that happens to
> have grabbed onto the 5432 TCP port number.
>
> Try using 'netstat' to see if 5432 is in use...
Note that on some OSes, a killed process's server ports aren't
released for a minute or two, so it can take a minute or two before
you can start postmaster again. This isn't a problem if the processes
are cleanly shutdown, normally.
Jules
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jules Bean | 2000-08-31 10:06:37 | Re: Large selects handled inefficiently? |
Previous Message | Jules Bean | 2000-08-31 08:58:34 | Re: Large selects handled inefficiently? |