On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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?
I don't think we get much benefit out of artificially limiting libpq
in this way. In 99.99% of cases it won't matter, and in the other
0.01% it will be a needless annoyance. I think we should restrict
ourselves to checking what is legal, not what we think is a good idea.
...Robert
