| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Date: | 2007-05-14 13:53:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20070514135338.GG20472@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:49:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on
> >>> the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since
> >>> we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global
> >>> namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing.
>
> > Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety
> > measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code
> > involved will be quite small.
>
> What happens if we just "#ifndef WIN32" the setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR)
> call? I believe the reason that's in there is that some platforms will
> reject bind() to a previously-used address for a TCP timeout delay after
> a previous postmaster quit, but if that doesn't happen on Windows then
> maybe all we need is to not set the option.
I think that at least used to happen on Windows in earlier versions.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-05-14 13:54:40 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 13:52:30 | Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages |