| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen |
| Date: | 2023-05-08 14:49:28 |
| Message-ID: | 416570.1683557368@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> This made me wonder if storing the unadorned port number is really the
> best way. Suppose we did extend things so that we listen on different
> ports on different interfaces; how would this scheme work at all?
Yeah, the probability that that will happen someday is one of the
things bothering me about this proposal. I'd rather change the
file format to support that first (it can be dummy for now, with
all lines showing the same port), and then document it second.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-05-08 15:22:28 | Re: Improve list manipulation in several places |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-05-08 14:48:04 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |