Re: Occupied port warning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Occupied port warning
Date
Msg-id 28160.1120223970@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Occupied port warning  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Not ignoring errors is one of the staples of PostgreSQL.  What you are 
> proposing here sounds entirely like a MySQL design plan.  Maybe that is 
> newbie-friendly in your mind, but I really doubt that.  I agree that we 
> do not want to force people to change kernel or system libraries.  But 
> it is not acceptable to ignore misconfigurations where a simple change 
> of a few configuration parameters would correct the situation,

My fundamental objection here is that I think you will be making error
cases out of situations where a kernel update is the only solution;
in particular the ones stemming from kernel and libc not being on the
same page about whether IPv6 is supported.  We must likewise not assume
that a would-be Postgres user is in a position to fix his DNS
infrastructure.  Treating these problems as warnings instead of hard
errors is hardly equivalent to risking data loss --- all it says is that
you won't be able to connect from certain places until you fix it, which
is certainly not worse than being unable to connect from anyplace
because you cannot get the postmaster to start.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jw
Date:
Subject: How to let more than one sessions work for same global transaction ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles