Are we going to apply this?  I would also like to see a comment added on
why we use SO_REUSEADDR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:34:05AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:02:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >  
> > >>Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>    
> > >>>If all we want to do is add a check that prevents two servers to start on
> > >>>the same port, we could do that trivially in a win32 specific way (since
> > >>>we'll never have unix sockets there). Just create an object in the global
> > >>>namespace named postgresql.interlock.<portnumber> or such a thing.
> > >>>      
> > >>Does it go away automatically on postmaster crash?
> > >>    
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > 
> > Then I think it's worth adding, and I'd argue that as a low risk safety 
> > measure we should allow it to sneak into 8.3. I'm assuming the code 
> > involved will be quite small.
> 
> Yes, see attached.
> 
> BTW, did you mean 8.2? One typical case where this could happen is in an
> upgrade scenario, I think...
> 
> //Magnus
> 

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to