On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gavin Sherry writes:
> > Found this while testing the first patch. As it happens I only have one
> > box handy and it was running PG already. I changed the default port to
> > 9999. When I executed bin/psql (the freshly built psql) it connected to my
> > production postmaster on port 5432.
> > The patch sets the configured port to that defined in pg_config.h.
> I'm not sure I believe that, because I rely on the correct behaviour every
> day and I'm sure so do others. (In fact, your patch would break other
> things, such as the PGPORT environment variable.)
> The sort of problem you describe is usually caused by psql using the wrong
> libpq library (where the default port number is recorded). I suggest you
> run 'ldd psql' to see which one it picks up.
It looks that way. My bad - thanks for pointing it out.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Rene Pijlman||Date: 2001-09-08 22:18:05|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] JDBC pg_description update needed for CVS tip |
|Previous:||From: Marc Balmer||Date: 2001-09-08 16:29:49|
|Subject: Am I subscribed?|