On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:29:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on win32.
> > Anybody see a problem with this?
> 
> > (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.

//Magnus

In response to

• Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? at 2007-06-04 03:29:33 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? at 2007-06-04 10:02:33 from Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2007-06-04 07:49:47
	Subject: Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logsafterrestoringfrom backup
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-06-04 07:30:07
	Subject: So, why isn't *every* buildfarm member failing ecpg right now?