On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:09:00PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/23/16 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 2/5/16 10:08 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:02:57PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>>>I just discovered that ./configure will happily accept '--with-pgport=' (I
> >>>>was actually doing =$PGPORT, and didn't realize $PGPORT was empty). What
> >>>>end up with is a compile error in guc.c, with no idea why it's broken. Any
> >>>>reason not to have configure or at least make puke if pgport isn't valid?
> >>>That seems like a good idea.
> >>Patch attached. I've verified it with --with-pgport=, =0, =77777 and =1. It
> >>catches what you'd expect it to.
> >Does it work to specify port numbers below 1024?
> Presumably not if you're trying to open a network port. But I just checked
> and if listen_addresses='' then you can use a low port number:
> select name,quote_nullable(setting) from pg_settings where name in
> name | quote_nullable
> listen_addresses | ''
> port | '1'
> (2 rows)
> Plus, the GUC check allows 1-1024, so I'm inclined to do the same in the
> config check. But I don't have a strong opinion about it.
I'm thinking that both the GUC check and the configure one should
restrict it to [1024..65535].
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: