Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9757.1179150587@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: