From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
Date: | 2009-10-15 18:59:39 |
Message-ID: | 12033.1255633179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ thinks... ] Maybe we could have the postmaster generate a random
>> number at start and include that in both the postmaster.ports file
>> and its pg_ping responses.
> Unless two postmasters could open the same server socket within a
> microsecond of one another, a timestamp value captured on opening the
> server socket seems even better than a random number.
Well, that raises the question of whether postmaster uptime could be
considered security-sensitive info. I'd still rather use a random
number.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-10-15 19:11:45 | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-15 18:55:44 | Re: Postgresql 8.4.1 segfault, backtrace |