Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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