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.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
