On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:04 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Peter Sabaini wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Peter Sabaini writes:
> >> > it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
> >> > communicate with the
Peter Sabaini writes:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd suggest backing off your ideas about how much filtering is
>> appropriate for local connections.
> Since we're running multiple database instances with different projects
> on one machine I'd like to isolate them as
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Peter Sabaini wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Sabaini writes:
>> > it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
>> > communicate with the statistics collector daemon. We have rather strict
>> > packet fi
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Sabaini writes:
> > it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
> > communicate with the statistics collector daemon. We have rather strict
> > packet filter rules in place, and I'd like to make the system use a
>
Peter Sabaini writes:
> it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
> communicate with the statistics collector daemon. We have rather strict
> packet filter rules in place, and I'd like to make the system use a
> fixed port for this, or even better a Unix domain socket.
Hello,
it seems Postgres tries to send a UDP packet to a random high port to
communicate with the statistics collector daemon. We have rather strict
packet filter rules in place, and I'd like to make the system use a
fixed port for this, or even better a Unix domain socket. Is this
possible (sett
