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