From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Min value for port |
Date: | 2013-06-27 13:22:42 |
Message-ID: | 20130627132242.GI1254@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-27 15:11:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
> >> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
> >> <1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
> >
> > Are you thinking of the restriction that you need to be root to use
> > ports <1024? That restriction is not necessarily universal. We can let
> > the kernel tell us at run time if it doesn't like our port.
>
> Yes, that's the restriction I was talking about. It's just a bit
> annoying that if you look at pg_settings.min_value it doesn't actually
> tell you the truth. But yeah, I believe Windows actually lets you use
> a lower port number, so it'd at least have to be #ifdef'ed for that if
> we wanted to change it.
You can easily change the setting on linux as well. And you can grant
specific binaries the permission to bind to restricted ports without
being root.
I don't think the additional complexity to get a sensible value in there
is warranted.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-27 13:48:25 | Re: PQConnectPoll, connect(2), EWOULDBLOCK and somaxconn |
Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2013-06-27 13:20:09 | Re: Min value for port |