> > > Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on win32.
I agree, that this is what we should do. > > > (A fairly good reference to read up on the options is at > > > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740621.aspx > > > > Hmm ... if accurate, that page says in words barely longer than one > > syllable that Microsoft entirely misunderstands the intended meaning > > of SO_REUSEADDR. > > Yes, that's how I read it as well. > > > It looks like SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE might be a bit closer to the > > standard semantics; should we use that instead on Windoze? > > I think you're reading something wrong. The way I read it, > SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE gives us pretty much the same behavior we have on Unix > *without* SO_REUSEADDR. There's a paragraph specificallyi > talking about the problem of restarting a server having to > wait for a timeout when using this switch. Yup, that switch is no good eighter. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
