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.
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? |