| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ssl tests fail due to TCP port conflict |
| Date: | 2024-06-05 21:37:15 |
| Message-ID: | 914151.1717623435@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
>> connection to
>> the test server with the client port 50072 and it made using the port by
>> the server from the test instance 001_ssltests_30 impossible.
> Oh. (kicks self)
D'oh.
> Should we really be allocating ephemeral server ports in the range
> 41952..65535? Maybe we should be looking for an unallocated port
> somewhere below 41952, and above, say, 32767, so we couldn't have a
> client socket collision.
Hmm, are there really any standards about how these port numbers
are used?
I wonder if we don't need to just be prepared to retry the whole
thing a few times. Even if it's true that "clients" shouldn't
choose ports below 41952, we still have a small chance of failure
against a non-Postgres server starting up at the wrong time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2024-06-05 22:21:46 | Re: [multithreading] extension compatibility |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-06-05 21:17:04 | Re: ssl tests fail due to TCP port conflict |