On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm machine, >>> you'd expect occasional random test failures due to this. The observed >>> fact that some buildfarm critters are much more prone to this type of >>> failure than others is well explained by this hypothesis. > >> Each test run uses its own custom unix_socket_directories, PGHOST is >> enforced to use it, and all the port tests go through that as well. > > By that argument, we don't need the free-port-searching code on Unix at > all. But this discussion is mostly about Windows machines.
Well, yes. That's true, we could do without. Even if this could give an indication about a node running, as long as a port has been associated to a node once, we just need to be sure that a new port is not allocated. On Windows, I am not sure that it is worth the complication to be honest, and the current code gives a small safety net, which is better than nothing. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
