Re: Occupied port warning

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Occupied port warning
Date: 2005-06-28 13:56:28
Message-ID: 42C1570C.9020308@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>IIRC, in previous versions any bind failure was fatal, but in 8.0 we
>>decided to be slightly more forgiving and only bail out if we failed
>>to bind at all.
>>
>>
>
>I realize that, but I would like to know where that bright idea came
>from in violation of all other principles of this and any other
>software. I recall that it had something to do with IPv6, but I'm not
>sure.
>
>
>

It came from the fertile brain of Tom Lane :-)

see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg00679.php

I think "violation of all other principles of this and any other
software" is far too strong.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-06-28 14:02:52 Re: Occupied port warning
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-06-28 13:54:43 Re: Occupied port warning