On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. By the way, while browsing about this problem, I found that > one other open source (nginx) has used a solution similar to what > Andres was proposing upthread to solve this problem. Refer: > https://github.com/nginx/nginx/commit/2ec8cfcd7d34415a99c3f3db3024ae954c00d0dd > > Just to be clear, by above, I don't mean to say that if some other > open source is using some solution, we should also use it, but I think > it is worth considering (especially if it is a proven solution - just > saying based on the time (2015) it has been committed and sustained in > the code).
I think the idea of retrying process creation (and I definitely agree with Tom and Magnus that we have to retry process creation, not just individual mappings) is a good place to start. Now if we find that we are having to retry frequently, then I think we might need to try something along the lines of what Andres proposed and what nginx apparently did. However, any fixed address will be prone to occasional failures (or maybe, on some systems, regular failures) if that particular address happens to get claimed by something. I don't think we can say that there is any address where that definitely won't happen. So I would say let's do this retry thing first, and then if that proves inadequate, we can also try moving the mappings to a range where conflicts are less likely. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
