Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-05-14T13:49:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> 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.

> 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.

What happens if we just "#ifndef WIN32" the setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR)
call?  I believe the reason that's in there is that some platforms will
reject bind() to a previously-used address for a TCP timeout delay after
a previous postmaster quit, but if that doesn't happen on Windows then
maybe all we need is to not set the option.

			regards, tom lane