Hi Richard,
I agree with you about the concept of "port number". I only wanted to know if
it is a new behavior of Postgresql 9.1.
Alberto
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Richard Welty" <rwe...@ltionline.com>
A: "Alberto Zanon" <alberto.za...@edistar.com>, "Merlin Moncure"
<mmonc...@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Inviato: Mercoledì, 23 maggio 2012 16:50:07
Oggetto: RE: [GENERAL] Migrating from 8.2 to 9.1 : invalid port number
RE: [GENERAL] Migrating from 8.2 to 9.1 : invalid port number
port numbers are restricted to 2 octets (16 bits). they are TCP/IP entities and
are restricted in size by the RFCs (internet standards.)
richard
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org on behalf of Alberto Zanon
Sent: Wed 5/23/2012 10:19 AM
To: Merlin Moncure
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Migrating from 8.2 to 9.1 : invalid port number
Thanks Merlin for the reply,
when you define a " Unix domain socket " you can use any number because it's
just used for the filename, e.g. "/var/run/.s.PGSQL.123456".
It works in PgPool and Postgres 8.2 with no problems.
Alberto
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Merlin Moncure" <mmonc...@gmail.com>
A: "Alberto Zanon" <alberto.za...@edistar.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Inviato: Mercoledì, 23 maggio 2012 15:45:26
Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Migrating from 8.2 to 9.1 : invalid port number
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Alberto Zanon
<alberto.za...@edistar.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> in my production environment I have Postgresql 8.2 + PgPool. The port number
> I specify in PgPool configuration is not a real portnumber (e.g. 123456). I
> can define a "dblink" as :
>
> dblink('dbname=XXXX host=/var/run port=123456 user=XXXX
> password=XXXX'::text, 'select ... '::text) t1( ... );
>
> or start "psql" as:
>
> psql -U XXXX -h /var/run -p 123456 XXXX
>
> without problems. In my development environment I upgraded to 9.1 version
> and the result is:
>
> invalid port number: "123456"
>
> in both cases. Does Postgresql 9.1 check the "port number" value although
> I'm connecting through a "Unix domain socket"? Is it a bug or an intended
> behavior?
> I noticed that it accepts values up to 65535.
65535 is the highest port number so what's happening here is 9.1 is
just doing error checking on the input value which is totally normal
and expected. why are you supplying a bogus port number?
merlin
