Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From scott.marlowe
Subject Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0312161406290.8211-100000@css120.ihs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade  (Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>)
Responses Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Jon Jensen wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
> > If you want to prevent "accidential" access, start postmaster on a 
> > non-standard port.
> 
> That seems like an unfriendly thing to do. You'd have to check to see what 
> port is "standard" for this particular installation, and pick something 
> else. You may choose an unused port, but perhaps it needs to be used in a 
> few minutes by some other process, but then will be occupied. The 
> administrator may also not be happy to have an open port facing the world, 
> or even just other possibly untrusted users on the same machine, assuming 
> you bind to localhost.

But aren't ports above a certain number "fair game"?

Yep, just answered my own question, quoting from /etc/services:

The latest IANA port assignments can be gotten from
#       http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
# The Well Known Ports are those from 0 through 1023.
# The Registered Ports are those from 1024 through 49151
# The Dynamic and/or Private Ports are those from 49152 through 65535

so as long as we use 49152 and above we're cool.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Next
From: Jon Jensen
Date:
Subject: Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade