On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1, >> not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of >> <1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well? > > Are you thinking of the restriction that you need to be root to use > ports <1024? That restriction is not necessarily universal. We can let > the kernel tell us at run time if it doesn't like our port.
Yes, that's the restriction I was talking about. It's just a bit annoying that if you look at pg_settings.min_value it doesn't actually tell you the truth. But yeah, I believe Windows actually lets you use a lower port number, so it'd at least have to be #ifdef'ed for that if we wanted to change it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
