Re: Bug #690: pg_ctl doesn't act properly for option -w

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: swqi(at)strongholdtech(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug #690: pg_ctl doesn't act properly for option -w
Date: 2002-06-11 21:33:57
Message-ID: 200206112133.g5BLXwU14512@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org wrote:
> shangwu (swqi(at)strongholdtech(dot)com) reports a bug with a severity of 3
> The lower the number the more severe it is.
>
> Short Description
> pg_ctl doesn't act properly for option -w
>
> Long Description
> If you start postmaster at some port number other than 5432 by pg_ctl with option -w, it doesn't block any more.
> The problem is that pg_ctl calls "psql -l" to check if the postmaster is started. Running psql without correct port number gets immediately failed with error exit code.

Alas, inside pg_ctl, there is this comment:

# FIXME: This is horribly misconceived.
# 1) If password authentication is set up, the connection will fail.
# 2) If a virtual host is set up, the connection may fail.
# 3) If network traffic filters are set up tight enough, the connection
# may fail.
# 4) When no Unix domain sockets are available, the connection will
# fail. (Using TCP/IP by default ain't better.)
# 5) When a different port is configured, the connection will fail
# or go to the wrong server.
# 6) If the dynamic loader is not set up correctly (for this user/at
# this time), psql will fail (to find libpq).
# 7) If psql is misconfigured, this may fail.

Feel free to send in a patch. :-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-06-11 22:20:41 Re: createdb comments
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-06-11 20:52:21 Re: Referential integrity problem postgresql 7.2 ?