Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

djm(at)web(dot)us(dot)uu(dot)net (David J. MacKenzie) writes:
>> I was afraid you were planning to run that way. Did you absorb the
>> point about shared memory keys being based (only) on the port number?

> + * So, if you use -h or PGHOST, don't try to run two instances of
> + * PostgreSQL on the same IP address but different ports. If you
> + * don't use them, then you must use different ports (via -p or
> + * PGPORT). And, of course, don't try to use both approaches on one
> + * host.

So it's still eminently breakable if the dbadmin does the wrong thing,
and it still doesn't detect that the dbadmin has done the wrong thing.
This doesn't calm my fears very much.

I think that in the last discussion of shared memory key assignment,
we had come up with a plan for detecting key collisions directly instead
of hoping they wouldn't happen. I don't have time to pursue this right
now, but according to my todo list there was a pghackers thread about it
around 4/30/00.

regards, tom lane