On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm unconvinced that allowing multiple port numbers is worth the > amount of confusion it will cause.
Well, it's a feature that people have asked for. I would love to have it. Much more than multiple Unix-domain socket locations. > In particular, we've traditionally > used "the port number" as part of the key for resources such as shared > memory. But it hasn't been a requirement for a long time that those match up exactly. It's already possible that they don't, if you configure postmasters with the same port and non-conflicting IP addresses or Unix-socket locations. > I think we'd want the number used for that purpose to be what > is written into the lock file ... but then what if the postmaster is > not actually listening on *any* actual socket with that number? > pg_ctl will not be happy. > I'm not sure why pg_ctl needs to know about the shared memory business. We write the shared memory key into the lock file, so the port number in the lock file should just be a port number for pg_ctl to use. Of course you can configure things so that pg_ctl cannot contact the postmaster, but this problem already exists in a more likely fashion with listen_addresses. Adding an extra port doesn't make it more likely. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
