Re: Occupied port warning

Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think we could also error out if we cannot create at least one
> > listen socket for each entry in listen_addresses (instead of at
> > least one overall).
>
> No; that will break cases that don't need to break.

Which cases would that be? If you specify a host name and it doesn't
get used at all, what sense could that possibly make?

> I was willing to hold still for the limited check you just applied,
> but I do not see that making it less error-tolerant than that is a
> good idea at all. It will just put obstacles in the path of newbies.

Not ignoring errors is one of the staples of PostgreSQL. What you are
proposing here sounds entirely like a MySQL design plan. Maybe that is
newbie-friendly in your mind, but I really doubt that. I agree that we
do not want to force people to change kernel or system libraries. But
it is not acceptable to ignore misconfigurations where a simple change
of a few configuration parameters would correct the situation, as in
this case:

> (In fact, I'm not even convinced that the limited check will survive
> beta. I think we'll be taking it out again, or at least reducing it
> to a WARNING, when the complaints start coming in. As of CVS tip,
> a default postmaster configuration will refuse to start if there is
> anything wrong with your "localhost" DNS setup, and we already
> learned that there are way too many machines where that is true.)

Here, you simply change the configuration to use numeric IP addresses.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/