Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <e2e5a119-c68e-5e4a-16e0-7a7e2c515741@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:16:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen
Content-Language: en-US
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <CA+TgmobxUVJ9O6i_tYX9bFL4dO1UAKSgTnj1tGz0+c5MTRDLXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RLCQwmNGvENLWaHwh3gDMnDUWyopV35+V3dXsNUA9A6_ZxKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobBZs7mAVUoUAUc6yFOQTRefN8DnT_QMvqtm1QAv8Gfpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM-w4HNO6d9Egr1JX+wGRFSJDOFVN6wMFxajfqdpgdx=eH20zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmob5BHPRhCZuZupKeacxMnvxHnuHAPXcA8XNj2KiPFDsKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1161673.1681322178@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+RLCQzF2r1ShfXQRyTL6azhpuPMxDRWzJdHK75r5csrm_crHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1215842.1681352267@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+RLCQw=a-=CQ6Pg-zuNwfNR=_Aa9R--F6jAR7bJZ5TCGYfOhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3aac0feb-dcf5-ad32-80b4-f8cda556e0f9@enterprisedb.com>
 <ZD9sU3Ax0bSSQfRG@tamriel.snowman.net>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZD9sU3Ax0bSSQfRG@tamriel.snowman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e2e5a119-c68e-5e4a-16e0-7a7e2c515741%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 19.04.23 06:21, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I don't think involving pg_ctl is necessary or desirable, since it would
>> make any future changes like that even more complicated.
> I'm a bit confused by this- if pg_ctl is invoked then we have
> more-or-less full control over parsing and reporting out the answer, so
> while it might be a bit more complicated for us, it seems surely simpler
> for the end user.  Or maybe you're referring to something here that I'm
> not thinking of?

Getting pg_ctl involved just requires a lot more work.  We need to write 
actual code, documentation, tests, help output, translations, etc.  If 
we ever change anything, then we need to transition the command-line 
arguments somehow, add more documentation, etc.

A file is a much simpler interface: You just write to it, write two 
sentences of documentation, that's all.

Or to put it another way, if we don't think a file is an appropriate 
interface, then why is a PID file appropriate?

> Independent of the above though ... this hand-wringing about what we
> might do in the relative near-term when we haven't done much in the past
> many-many years regarding listen_addresses or port strikes me as
> unlikely to be necessary.  Let's pick something and get it done and
> accept that we may have to change it at some point in the future, but
> that's kinda what major releases are for, imv anyway.

Right.  I'm perfectly content with just allowing port number 0 and 
leaving it at that.