From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Sabaini <peter(dot)sabaini(at)ait(dot)ac(dot)at> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Statistics collector port / unix dom. socket? |
Date: | 2010-05-04 20:04:38 |
Message-ID: | w2ydcc563d11005041304ufc8ee23dy2e0873df298d2b5f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Peter Sabaini <peter(dot)sabaini(at)ait(dot)ac(dot)at> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Sabaini <peter(dot)sabaini(at)ait(dot)ac(dot)at> writes:
>> > it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
>> > communicate with the statistics collector daemon. We have rather strict
>> > packet filter rules in place, and I'd like to make the system use a
>> > fixed port for this, or even better a Unix domain socket. Is this
>> > possible (setting a compile time or run time parameter)?
>>
>> No, the stats collector just uses whatever port bind() chooses for it.
>
> A pity.
>
>> I'd suggest backing off your ideas about how much filtering is
>> appropriate for local connections.
>
> Since we're running multiple database instances with different projects
> on one machine I'd like to isolate them as best I can.
Maybe running them in individual VMs would do that.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-04 20:09:12 | Re: Statistics collector port / unix dom. socket? |
Previous Message | Peter Sabaini | 2010-05-04 19:41:21 | Re: Statistics collector port / unix dom. socket? |