Are we going to apply this? I would also like to see a comment added on why we use SO_REUSEADDR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:34:05AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:02:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > >>Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > > >>>If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on > > >>>the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since > > >>>we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global > > >>>namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing. > > >>> > > >>Does it go away automatically on postmaster crash? > > >> > > > > > >Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety > > measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code > > involved will be quite small. > > Yes, see attached. > > BTW, did you mean 8.2? One typical case where this could happen is in an > upgrade scenario, I think... > > //Magnus > [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
