Yurii Rashkovskii <yra...@gmail.com> writes: > Thank you all for the feedback. It's quite useful. I think it is important > to separate this into two concerns:
> 1. Letting Postgres pick an unused port. > 2. Retrieving the port it picked. Yeah, those are distinguishable implementation concerns, but ... > The bottom line is this decouples (1) from (2), and we can resolve them > separately if there's too much (understandable) hesitation to commit to a > particular approach to it (documenting postmaster.pid, changing its format, > amending pg_ctl functionality, etc.) ... AFAICS, there is exactly zero value in committing a solution for (1) without also committing a solution for (2). I don't think any of the alternative methods you proposed are attractive or things we should recommend. regards, tom lane