| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh(at)swapsimple(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: two servers on the same port |
| Date: | 2008-10-18 17:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | 25023.1224349435@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's already documented not to work, and not for any hidden
>> implementation reason: you'd have a conflict on the Unix-domain socket
>> name.
> unless you use a different socket directory.
Hmm ... but the OP didn't mention any such thing. In any case I think
he's misdiagnosed his problem, because the shmem code *should* ignore
pre-existing shmem segments that are already in use --- see the loop in
PGSharedMemoryCreate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-10-18 18:00:40 | Re: PGDay.it collation discussion notes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-10-18 16:55:07 | Re: two servers on the same port |