Re: Occupied port warning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Occupied port warning
Date: 2005-07-01 13:19:30
Message-ID: 28160.1120223970@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> 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,

My fundamental objection here is that I think you will be making error
cases out of situations where a kernel update is the only solution;
in particular the ones stemming from kernel and libc not being on the
same page about whether IPv6 is supported. We must likewise not assume
that a would-be Postgres user is in a position to fix his DNS
infrastructure. Treating these problems as warnings instead of hard
errors is hardly equivalent to risking data loss --- all it says is that
you won't be able to connect from certain places until you fix it, which
is certainly not worse than being unable to connect from anyplace
because you cannot get the postmaster to start.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-01 13:43:42 Re: enable/disable trigger (Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Open items)
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2005-07-01 12:49:52 Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles