| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Date: | 2007-05-14 14:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | 87646vcxpb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> What happens if we just "#ifndef WIN32" the setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR)
> call? I believe the reason that's in there is that some platforms will
> reject bind() to a previously-used address for a TCP timeout delay after
> a previous postmaster quit, but if that doesn't happen on Windows then
> maybe all we need is to not set the option.
Well it's worth checking. But whereas Windows breaking our understanding of
what SO_REUSEADDR does doesn't actually violate any specification, not having
a TIME_WAIT state at all would certainly violate the TCP spec. So it's
somewhat unlikely that that's what they're doing. But anything's possible.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 14:20:39 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 13:58:13 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |