Re: two servers on the same port

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh(at)swapsimple(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: two servers on the same port
Date: 2008-10-20 02:15:22
Message-ID: 11068.1224468922@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh(at)swapsimple(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:48:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's already documented not to work, and not for any hidden
>> implementation reason: you'd have a conflict on the Unix-domain socket
>> name.

> er.. but I didn't get any kind of error about a conflict on a unix domain
> socket, I got an error about shmget. I don't even think it's possible
> to have a conflict like that since the two servers were running in
> different chroot directories.

Well, different chroot would do it, but you didn't mention that ;-)

Anyway, I still think that the proposed documentation patches are wrong,
because the code ought to work as long as you don't have a direct
conflict on TCP or Unix sockets. It's true that the port number is used
as a seed for picking shmem keys, but it should try the next key if it
hits an already-in-use shmem segment. Can you poke at it a bit more
closely and see what's happening? What platform is this, anyway?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eric Haszlakiewicz 2008-10-20 02:57:19 Re: two servers on the same port
Previous Message Eric Haszlakiewicz 2008-10-20 01:59:28 Re: two servers on the same port