Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Date: 2007-05-14 13:06:15
Message-ID: 20070514130615.GB7531@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> There is a related risk even on Unix machines: two postmasters can be
> started on the same port number if they have different settings of
> unix_socket_directory, and then it's indeterminate which one you will
> contact if you connect to the TCP port. I seem to recall that we
> discussed this several years ago, and didn't really find a satisfactory
> way of interlocking the TCP port per se.

I'm curious as to which Unix systems allow multiple processes to listen
on the same port at the same time.. On Linux, and I thought on most,
you get an EADDRINUSE on the listen() call (which the postmaster should
pick up on and bomb out, which it may already).

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2007-05-14 13:15:09 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-14 13:02:10 Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?