| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alberto Zanon <alberto(dot)zanon(at)edistar(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Welty <rwelty(at)ltionline(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Migrating from 8.2 to 9.1 : invalid port number |
| Date: | 2012-05-23 16:33:53 |
| Message-ID: | 5970.1337790833@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alberto Zanon <alberto(dot)zanon(at)edistar(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with you about the concept of "port number". I only wanted to know if it is a new behavior of Postgresql 9.1.
More like 9.0, according to our commit logs:
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Branch: master Release: REL9_0_BR [61be11ff0] 2009-09-27 03:43:10 +0000
Make libpq reject non-numeric and out-of-range port numbers with a suitable
error message, rather than blundering on and failing with something opaque.
Sam Mason
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-23 16:37:54 | Re: Re: significant performance hit whenever autovacuum runs after upgrading from 9.0 -> 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2012-05-23 16:33:07 | Re: FATAL: lock file "postmaster.pid" already exists |