From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(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: | 2007-06-04 10:02:33 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579021B2FF0@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on
win32.
I agree, that this is what we should do.
> > > (A fairly good reference to read up on the options is at
> > > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740621.aspx
> >
> > Hmm ... if accurate, that page says in words barely longer than one
> > syllable that Microsoft entirely misunderstands the intended meaning
> > of SO_REUSEADDR.
>
> Yes, that's how I read it as well.
>
> > It looks like SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE might be a bit closer to the
> > standard semantics; should we use that instead on Windoze?
>
> I think you're reading something wrong. The way I read it,
> SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE gives us pretty much the same behavior we have on
Unix
> *without* SO_REUSEADDR. There's a paragraph specificallyi
> talking about the problem of restarting a server having to
> wait for a timeout when using this switch.
Yup, that switch is no good eighter.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-06-04 10:12:20 | Re: Upcoming events |
Previous Message | Enrico Sirola | 2007-06-04 09:30:50 | Re: table partitioning pl/pgsql helpers |