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
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 |