Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen
| От | Yurii Rashkovskii |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+RLCQy1FjPpSWxgJMPXA4xe64kXsEEtXwcVtcbNPAMscZt0qA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro, Tom,
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> This made me wonder if storing the unadorned port number is really the
> best way. Suppose we did extend things so that we listen on different
> ports on different interfaces; how would this scheme work at all?
Yeah, the probability that that will happen someday is one of the
things bothering me about this proposal. I'd rather change the
file format to support that first (it can be dummy for now, with
all lines showing the same port), and then document it second.
How soon do you think the change will occur that will allow for choosing different ports on different interfaces? I am happy to help address this.
improved the port line to be something like this?
```
127.0.0.1=5432 ::1=54321
```
Basically, a space-delimited set of address/port pairs (delimited by `=` to allow IPv6 addresses to use a colon). If we allow the address side to be dropped, the current format (`5432`) will also be correct parsing-wise.
Y.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: