Re: Pg and Stunnel - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Pg and Stunnel
Date
Msg-id 6610.1050007872@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Pg and Stunnel  ("Roderick A. Anderson" <raanders@acm.org>)
Responses Re: Pg and Stunnel  (Dennis Gearon <gearond@cvc.net>)
List pgsql-general
"Roderick A. Anderson" <raanders@acm.org> writes:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote:
>> You  might try 5433/4

> Yeah this makes sense but I wanted to see what others might be using.  The
> tutorial from the Pg (or friend) site uses 5430 which is already assigned.

The 5433/4 numbers could get assigned at any minute, too.  That doesn't
mean they'd suddenly be likely to be in use on your site, though.  Most
of the protocols with recently-assigned numbers are pretty dang obscure.

Still, I'd lean to using one of the port numbers above 49k.  If you have
a conflict, at least no one can accuse you of ignoring published specs.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Amir Becher
Date:
Subject: Re: Corrupt index
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Corrupt index