Re: Occupied port warning

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Occupied port warning
Date: 2005-06-28 13:54:43
Message-ID: 20050628135443.GA6999@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:14:29PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > IIRC, in previous versions any bind failure was fatal, but in 8.0 we
> > decided to be slightly more forgiving and only bail out if we failed
> > to bind at all.
>
> I realize that, but I would like to know where that bright idea came
> from in violation of all other principles of this and any other
> software. I recall that it had something to do with IPv6, but I'm not
> sure.

If the TCP socket is used we can still bind to the Unix-domain socket,
no?

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"Vivir y dejar de vivir son soluciones imaginarias.
La existencia está en otra parte" (Andre Breton)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-06-28 13:56:28 Re: Occupied port warning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-28 13:51:20 Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger