From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Min value for port |
Date: | 2013-06-27 13:11:26 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEzAbskVdLADxLpzsjUb1h44bnBZDHD7Ro_yc_jW4dw2_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
>> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
>> <1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
>
> Are you thinking of the restriction that you need to be root to use
> ports <1024? That restriction is not necessarily universal. We can let
> the kernel tell us at run time if it doesn't like our port.
Yes, that's the restriction I was talking about. It's just a bit
annoying that if you look at pg_settings.min_value it doesn't actually
tell you the truth. But yeah, I believe Windows actually lets you use
a lower port number, so it'd at least have to be #ifdef'ed for that if
we wanted to change it.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2013-06-27 13:20:09 | Re: Min value for port |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-27 13:08:31 | Re: extensible external toast tuple support & snappy prototype |