Re: PostgreSQL server listen on other port than 5432

From: Dotan Barak <dotanba(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL server listen on other port than 5432
Date: 2009-08-02 07:16:37
Message-ID: 2f3bf9a60908020016x19c31a88ha8ea337d4360e8fc@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dotan Barak <dotanba(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The weird thing is that i used this port in a service that i wrote
>> only few seconds before this happened...
>
> Oh?  How'd you start that service exactly?
>
> I'm thinking maybe the postmaster inherited the open file from its
> parent process.  If it's not marked close-on-exec, which evidently
> it's not since the child processes have it too, then this could have
> happened as far as Postgres itself is concerned.  I'm having a bit of
> a hard time imagining how an open file could have gotten transmitted
> from some other initscript to this one, but it seems more probable
> than any other theory at the moment.
>
> Do any other processes besides PG have that socket open?  If you stop
> and restart the postmaster, does it open the socket again?

I guess you hit the spot: I have a service that I wrote in python
which uses port 17583.
This process restart the postgres SQL service using
"/etc/init.d/postgres restart"

I think that this may be related to this problem ...

I will mark the socket as close on exec.

Thanks!!!!
Dotan

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2009-08-02 10:01:44 Re: building a binary-portable database
Previous Message Alexy Khrabrov 2009-08-02 05:42:13 Re: building a binary-portable database