"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> [ thinks... ] Maybe we could have the postmaster generate a random >> number at start and include that in both the postmaster.ports file >> and its pg_ping responses. > Unless two postmasters could open the same server socket within a > microsecond of one another, a timestamp value captured on opening the > server socket seems even better than a random number.
Well, that raises the question of whether postmaster uptime could be considered security-sensitive info. I'd still rather use a random number. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs