| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |
| Date: | 2007-05-14 13:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 9757.1179150587@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on
>>> the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since
>>> we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global
>>> namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing.
> Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety
> measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code
> involved will be quite small.
What happens if we just "#ifndef WIN32" the setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR)
call? I believe the reason that's in there is that some platforms will
reject bind() to a previously-used address for a TCP timeout delay after
a previous postmaster quit, but if that doesn't happen on Windows then
maybe all we need is to not set the option.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-14 13:52:30 | Re: Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-14 13:48:25 | Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji? |