On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 08/11/2010 09:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> writes: >>>> Why not just add the configured port (DEF_PGPORT) into the calculation >>>> of the port to run on? > >>> No, that would be just about the worst possible choice. It'd be >>> guaranteed to fail in the standard scenario that you are running >>> "make check" before updating an existing installation. > >> One of us is missing something. I didn't say to run the checks using the >> configured port. I had in mind something like: > >> port = 0xC000 | ((PG_VERSION_NUM + DEF_PGPORT) & 0x3FFF); > > Oh, I see, modify the DEF_PGPORT don't just use it as-is. OK, except > that I think something like the above is still pretty risky for the > buildfarm, because you would still have conflicts for assorted > combinations of version numbers and branch_port settings. > > How about just this: > > port = 0xC000 | (DEF_PGPORT & 0x3FFF); > > If anyone was actually using a DEF_PGPORT above 0xC000, this would mean > that they couldn't run "make check" on the same machine as their running > installation (at least not without adjusting pg_regress's port choice, > which I still think we need to tweak the makefiles to make easier). > But for ordinary buildfarm usage, this would be guaranteed not to > conflict as long as you'd chosen nonconflicting branch_ports for all > your branches and animals. > > Or we could do something like > > port = 0xC000 ^ (DEF_PGPORT & 0x7FFF); > > which is absolutely guaranteed not to conflict with DEF_PGPORT, at the > cost of possibly shifting into the 32K-48K port number range if you > had set DEF_PGPORT above 48K.
I like XOR a lot better than OR. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
