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
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 |