Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Date: 2007-05-14 13:15:09
Message-ID: 464860DD.2000901@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> There is a related risk even on Unix machines: two postmasters can be
>> started on the same port number if they have different settings of
>> unix_socket_directory, and then it's indeterminate which one you will
>> contact if you connect to the TCP port. I seem to recall that we
>> discussed this several years ago, and didn't really find a satisfactory
>> way of interlocking the TCP port per se.
>
> I'm curious as to which Unix systems allow multiple processes to listen
> on the same port at the same time.. On Linux, and I thought on most,
> you get an EADDRINUSE on the listen() call (which the postmaster should
> pick up on and bomb out, which it may already).

Linux certainly does. Windows seems to treat SO_REUSEADDR in the same
way as SO_REUSEPORT which just seems wrong.

Regards, Dave.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-05-14 13:16:26 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2007-05-14 13:06:15 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?