Hello Magnus,
Thanks a lot for your time checking my email.
Am 15.06.2012 07:56, schrieb Magnus Hagander:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:45 AM,<m...@it-infrastrukturen.org> wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 6689
Logged by: Mark
Email address: m...@it-infrastrukturen.org
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3
Operating system: unbuntu-server 12.04 LTS
Description:
When using /var/run/postgresql/ as unix_socket_directory for "main" and
"second" pgcluster and different IP-interfaces (addresse) for every
pgcluster (but the same default port number), there are different pid file
names (like 9.1-main.pid and 9.1-secondpg.pid) *but* names of unix_sockek
files doesn't follow such name conventions.
It results in error when trying to run the second pgcluster with another IP
but the same (default port 5432):
Error: Port conflict: another instance is already running on on
/var/run/postgresql with port 5432
First of all, this is not a bug - this is intended behaviour. Perhaps
the documentation needs to be clearified on the fact that the port
number needs to be unique across all instances though.
Even it is not an implementation bug it is a kind of *conception* bug
from my point of view.
There is *no* real reason why port numbers should be different for
different IP addresses.
There is anything about running further psql instances on different
ethernet interfaces (on one box) in the current doc yet.
One reason is that the port number is used to control several other
things. Just the Unix socket is only one of the things - it also
controls the name of shared memory segments, so it still won't work if
you work around that.
When I want to run two separate psql instances they should use also
separate shared memory segments.
All instances need to have their own ports. If you want to listen on
the same port on different IPs, you will need to use something like
kernel level ip forwarding to rewrite the access, and actually run
PostgreSQL on different ports still.
Using different port number for the second ethernet interface works as
expected.
How complex is it to implement different unix_socket names in the sourse
code?
(when further instances listen on different ethernet interfaces)
regards, Mark
--
m...@it-infrastrukturen.org
http://rsync.it-infrastrukturen.org
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
