| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 00:59:25 |
| Message-ID: | 2898.1253840365@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-owned
processes and we know the postmaster won't be one. I am not sure
whether it would be possible to start the postmaster on a low-numbered
port on Windows though. Anyone know? Even if it's possible, do we
want to allow it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-25 01:24:34 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-25 00:41:24 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-25 01:24:34 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-25 00:48:42 | Re: [PATCH] Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2311) |