> > > Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on
I agree, that this is what we should do.
> > > (A fairly good reference to read up on the options is at
> > > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740621.aspx
> > Hmm ... if accurate, that page says in words barely longer than one
> > syllable that Microsoft entirely misunderstands the intended meaning
> > of SO_REUSEADDR.
> Yes, that's how I read it as well.
> > It looks like SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE might be a bit closer to the
> > standard semantics; should we use that instead on Windoze?
> I think you're reading something wrong. The way I read it,
> SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE gives us pretty much the same behavior we have on
> *without* SO_REUSEADDR. There's a paragraph specificallyi
> talking about the problem of restarting a server having to
> wait for a timeout when using this switch.
Yup, that switch is no good eighter.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Teodor Sigaev||Date: 2007-06-04 10:12:20|
|Subject: Re: Upcoming events|
|Previous:||From: Enrico Sirola||Date: 2007-06-04 09:30:50|
|Subject: Re: table partitioning pl/pgsql helpers|