From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
Date: | 2007-06-04 07:37:09 |
Message-ID: | 20070604073709.GA21240@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-04 07:49:47 | Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logsafterrestoringfrom backup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-04 07:30:07 | So, why isn't *every* buildfarm member failing ecpg right now? |