On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> writes: >> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535) > > BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting > target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems > I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-owned > processes and we know the postmaster won't be one. I am not sure > whether it would be possible to start the postmaster on a low-numbered > port on Windows though. Anyone know? Even if it's possible, do we > want to allow it?
I don't think we get much benefit out of artificially limiting libpq in this way. In 99.99% of cases it won't matter, and in the other 0.01% it will be a needless annoyance. I think we should restrict ourselves to checking what is legal, not what we think is a good idea. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
