| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen | 
| Date: | 2023-04-19 04:10:27 | 
| Message-ID: | 3aac0feb-dcf5-ad32-80b4-f8cda556e0f9@enterprisedb.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 13.04.23 04:45, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:
> But getting your agreement is important to get this in; I am willing to 
> play along and resolve both (1) and (2) in one go. As for the 
> implementation approach for (2), which of the following options would 
> you prefer?
> 
> a) Document postmaster.pid as it stands today
> b) Expose the port number through pg_ctl (*my personal favorite)
> c) Redesign its content below line 1 to make it extensible (make unnamed 
> lines named, for example)
> 
> If none of the above options suit you, do you have a strategy you'd prefer?
You could just drop another file into the data directory that just 
contains the port number ($PGDATA/port).  However, if we ever do 
multiple ports, that would still require a change in the format of that 
file, so I don't know if that's actually better than a).
I don't think involving pg_ctl is necessary or desirable, since it would 
make any future changes like that even more complicated.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-04-19 04:21:39 | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen | 
| Previous Message | Junwang Zhao | 2023-04-19 03:51:19 | Re: Use INT_MAX for wal size related gucs's max value |