From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |
Date: | 2004-03-05 14:10:56 |
Message-ID: | 4875.24.211.141.25.1078495856.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
Magnus Hagander said:
>> > I've seen both these messages after each other when -i is not
>> > specified. Been meaning to adress the issue of it not failing
>> > gracefully without -i on win32.
>> >
>> > Anyway. It seems the postmaster goes down while a child process is
>> > still going up (stats collector, I guess) or something along that
>> > line. This way the child can't attach to shared memory, and
>> there you
>> > go.
>> >
>> > If you add PID information to the log, you will notice that the
>> > messages are from two different processes.
>> >
>>
>> Is there a case for forcing -i and ignoring the GUC setting
>> on Windows? Since we can't do Unix domain sockets there it
>> would seem to make sense.
>
> Yeah, that could be done. I was more into doing a generic fix that
> would fail gracefully in any case when the server is not listening on
> anything (no Unix, no TCPIP) and error out then.
>
> Are there any other platforms which don't have unix sockets? If not,
> then that thought is not valid, and we shuold just force it on win32.
> If not, how do they handle starting of the postmaster without -i today?
> And do we want the same behaviour there?
>
> Perhaps we should force it to open a tcp socket on 127.0.0.1 only? That
> way we don't suddenly open up to external connections without the user
> asking for it.
>
Hmm. That also raises the question of what we should do if virtual_host is
set.
[thinks some more ...]
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-05 14:32:38 | Re: A plan to improve error messages with context, hint and details. |
Previous Message | Alex J. Avriette | 2004-03-05 13:49:31 | Re: Slony-I makes progress |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-05 14:27:26 | APC + socket restrictions under Win32? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-03-05 13:24:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-05 14:53:54 | Re: notice about costly ri checks (2) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-03-05 12:52:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |