On 27/06/13 15:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
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.
There's also authbind and CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE.
Jan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
