Michael Paquier wrote:
> > If that's not a hard-coded PG version number then I don't know
> > what it is. Maybe it would be better to use random() instead,
> > but surely this isn't good as-is.
>
> We would definitely want something within the ephemeral port range, so
> we are up to that:
> rand() * 16384 + 49152;
Yes, this seems to produce the correct range.
Thanks Noah and Tom for the review, and thanks Michael for the patch. I
pushed it. A slight fix was to change the chomp() call; it was always
returning 1 (number of elements chomped) so it tried to kill init.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
