Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling

On 25 sep 2009, at 02.59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
>> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
>
> BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
> target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
> I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-
> owned
> processes and we know the postmaster won't be one. I am not sure
> whether it would be possible to start the postmaster on a low-numbered
> port on Windows though. Anyone know? Even if it's possible, do we
> want to allow it?

Windows doesn't care. A non privileged process can open any port, both
above and below 1024.

Other than that, I agree with previous comments - restricting this in
libpq won't actually help anything, but in a few limited cases it will
be very annoying.

/Magnus

>