From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Brittleness in regression test setup |
Date: | 2008-11-27 11:56:52 |
Message-ID: | 20081127115652.GA4586@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Is it possible to make it retry in case the chosen port is busy? I
>>> guess a simple check should suffice, ignoring the obvious race condition
>>> that someone uses the port after you checked it was OK.
>>
>> Well, the whole point of this exercise was to avoid that. If we had a
>> way to do a "simple check", we might as well stick to the hardcoded
>> port and count up from that or something.
>
> Well, duh, the checking is actually pretty simple. We just try to
> connect with psql to the candidate port number before starting our own
> postmaster and see if anyone is already there.
But what if something else is using the port? I think you could attempt
a bare connect().
Note typo here:
> + fprintf(stderr, _("Specify an used port using the --port option or shut down any conflicting PostgreSQL servers.\n"));
Should say "an unused port"
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-11-27 12:00:39 | Re: Thread safety |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-11-27 11:55:45 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |