Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Date
Msg-id 2898.1253840365@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to libpq port number handling  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
List pgsql-general
Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
> +        if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)

BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024.  This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-owned
processes and we know the postmaster won't be one.  I am not sure
whether it would be possible to start the postmaster on a low-numbered
port on Windows though.  Anyone know?  Even if it's possible, do we
want to allow it?

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Next
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling