Thread: Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

From
Tom Lane
Date:
djm@web.us.uu.net (David J. MacKenzie) writes:
>> I was afraid you were planning to run that way.  Did you absorb the
>> point about shared memory keys being based (only) on the port number?

> +        * So, if you use -h or PGHOST, don't try to run two instances of
> +        * PostgreSQL on the same IP address but different ports.  If you
> +        * don't use them, then you must use different ports (via -p or
> +        * PGPORT).  And, of course, don't try to use both approaches on one
> +        * host.

So it's still eminently breakable if the dbadmin does the wrong thing,
and it still doesn't detect that the dbadmin has done the wrong thing.
This doesn't calm my fears very much.

I think that in the last discussion of shared memory key assignment,
we had come up with a plan for detecting key collisions directly instead
of hoping they wouldn't happen.  I don't have time to pursue this right
now, but according to my todo list there was a pghackers thread about it
around 4/30/00.
        regards, tom lane


Re: Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting support

From
"Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> I think that in the last discussion of shared memory key assignment,
> we had come up with a plan for detecting key collisions directly instead
> of hoping they wouldn't happen.  I don't have time to pursue this right
> now, but according to my todo list there was a pghackers thread about it
> around 4/30/00.
> 

Tom's TODO list as index into pghackers archive: seems so appropriate ;-)

Ross
-- 
Open source code is like a natural resource, it's the result of providing
food and sunshine to programmers, and then staying out of their way.
[...] [It] is not going away because it has utility for both the developers 
and users independent of economic motivations.  Jim Flynn, Sunnyvale, Calif.