On 2024-06-05 We 16:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>> 05.06.2024 21:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I see what's going on here. It looks like it's because we
>>> start the server in unix socket mode, and then switch to using TCP
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Can you try your test with this patch applied and see if the problem
>>> persists? If we start in TCP mode the framework should test for a
>>> port clash.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that the failure rate decreased (I guess the patch rules out
>> the
>> case with two servers choosing the same port), but I still got:
>>
>> 16/53 postgresql:ssl / ssl/001_ssltests_36 OK 15.25s 205
>> subtests passed
>> 17/53 postgresql:ssl / ssl/001_ssltests_30 ERROR 3.17s (exit
>> status 255 or signal 127 SIGinvalid)
>>
>> 2024-06-05 19:40:37.395 UTC [414110] LOG: starting PostgreSQL
>> 17beta1 on x86_64-linux, compiled by gcc-13.2.1, 64-bit
>> 2024-06-05 19:40:37.395 UTC [414110] LOG: could not bind IPv4
>> address "127.0.0.1": Address already in use
>> 2024-06-05 19:40:37.395 UTC [414110] HINT: Is another postmaster
>> already running on port 50072? If not, wait a few seconds and retry.
>>
>> `grep '\b50072\b' -r testrun/` yields:
>> testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_34/log/001_ssltests_34_primary.log:2024-06-05
>> 19:40:37.392 UTC [414111] [unknown] LOG: connection received:
>> host=localhost port=50072
>> (a psql case)
>>
>> That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
>> connection to
>> the test server with the client port 50072 and it made using the port by
>> the server from the test instance 001_ssltests_30 impossible.
>>
>
> Oh. (kicks self)
>
> Should we really be allocating ephemeral server ports in the range
> 41952..65535? Maybe we should be looking for an unallocated port
> somewhere below 41952, and above, say, 32767, so we couldn't have a
> client socket collision.
Except that I see this on my Ubuntu instance:
$ sudo sysctl net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range
net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 32768 60999
And indeed I see client sockets in that range.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
