Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen

On 2023-04-12 We 11:01, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:17 PM Yurii Rashkovskii<yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I appreciate your support on the pid file concern. What questions do you have about this feature with regard to its desirability and/or implementation? I'd love to learn from your insight and address any of those if I can.
> I don't have any particularly specific concerns. But, you know, if a
> bunch of other people, especially people already known the community
> showed up on this thread to say "hey, I'd like that too" or "that
> would be better than what we have now," well then that would make me
> think "hey, we should probably move forward with this thing." But so
> far the only people to comment are Tom and Andrew. Tom, in addition to
> complaining about the PID file thing, also basically said that the
> feature didn't seem necessary to him, and Andrew's comments seem to me
> to suggest the same thing. So it kind of seems like you've convinced
> zero people that this is a thing we should have, and that's not very
> many.

Not quite, I just suggested looking at a different approach.  I'm not
opposed to the idea in principle.

I agree with you that parsing the pid file shouldn't be hard or
unreasonable.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com