From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Cary Huang <cary.huang@highgo.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen
In-reply-to: <20230508144301.tr2kvlihqddwp6ss@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20230508144301.tr2kvlihqddwp6ss@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Mon, 08 May 2023 16:43:01 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <416569.1683557368.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 10:49:28 -0400
Message-ID: <416570.1683557368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/416570.1683557368%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> This made me wonder if storing the unadorned port number is really the
> best way.  Suppose we did extend things so that we listen on different
> ports on different interfaces; how would this scheme work at all?

Yeah, the probability that that will happen someday is one of the
things bothering me about this proposal.  I'd rather change the
file format to support that first (it can be dummy for now, with
all lines showing the same port), and then document it second.

			regards, tom lane