Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070514135338.GG20472@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:49:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on > >>> the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since > >>> we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global > >>> namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing. > > > Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety > > measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code > > involved will be quite small. > > 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. I think that at least used to happen on Windows in earlier versions. //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: