On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 06:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I am not sure if there's anything very good we can do about the > problem of pg_regress misidentifying the postmaster it's managed to > connect to. A real solution would probably be much more trouble than > it's worth, anyway. However, it does seem like we ought to be able to > do something about two buildfarm critters defaulting to the same choice > of port number. The buildfarm infrastructure goes to great lengths to > pick nonconflicting port numbers for the "installed" postmasters it > runs; but we're ignoring all that effort and just using a hardwired > port number for "make check". This is dumb. > > pg_regress does have a --port argument that can be used to override > that default. I don't know whether the buildfarm script calls > pg_regress directly or does "make check". If the latter, we'd need to > twiddle the Makefiles to allow a port number to get passed in. But > this seems well worthwhile to me. > > Comments? >
We just put in the possibility to name the client connections. Would it be interesting to be able to name the server installation itself?
