On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm machine,
>>> you'd expect occasional random test failures due to this.  The observed
>>> fact that some buildfarm critters are much more prone to this type of
>>> failure than others is well explained by this hypothesis.
>> Each test run uses its own custom unix_socket_directories, PGHOST is
>> enforced to use it, and all the port tests go through that as well.
> By that argument, we don't need the free-port-searching code on Unix at
> all.  But this discussion is mostly about Windows machines.

Well, yes. That's true, we could do without. Even if this could give
an indication about a node running, as long as a port has been
associated to a node once, we just need to be sure that a new port is
not allocated. On Windows, I am not sure that it is worth the
complication to be honest, and the current code gives a small safety
net, which is better than nothing.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to