"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> Uh ... so the lock-file stuff is completely broken on Windows? > > Not so much broken as commented out ... on looking at the code, it's > blindingly obvious that we don't even try to create a socket lock file > if not HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS. Sigh.
Isn't the socket lock file only there to protect the socket? > There is a related risk even on Unix machines: two postmasters can be > started on the same port number if they have different settings of > unix_socket_directory, and then it's indeterminate which one you will > contact if you connect to the TCP port. I seem to recall that we > discussed this several years ago, and didn't really find a satisfactory > way of interlocking the TCP port per se. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/local-concurrent-psql/pgsql/src/bin/psql$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres -D /var/tmp/db2 LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: Address already in use HINT: Is another postmaster already running on port 5432? If not, wait a few seconds and retry. WARNING: could not create listen socket for "localhost" FATAL: could not create any TCP/IP sockets Is it possible the previous discussion related to servers with IPv6 where they did manage to bind to one but not the other? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
