| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2023-05-08 12:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaF7Lq-ikr-5=i8fyV6ivyiodLJm5F2+06Xm-Nmz4+dFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:16 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Right. I'm perfectly content with just allowing port number 0 and
> leaving it at that.
That seems fine to me, too. If somebody wants to add a pg_ctl feature
to extract this or any other information from the postmaster.pid file,
that can be a separate patch. But it's not necessarily the case that
users would even prefer that interface. Some might, some might not. Or
so it seems to me, anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-05-08 12:57:08 | Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-05-08 12:27:09 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |