On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-27 15:11:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > > On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1
On 2013-06-27 15:11:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
> >> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres wit
On 27/06/13 15:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
<1024, sho
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
>> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
>> <1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings ref
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
> <1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
Are you thinking of the restriction that
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
<1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
