Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling

Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
> +        if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)

BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024.  This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-owned
processes and we know the postmaster won't be one.  I am not sure
whether it would be possible to start the postmaster on a low-numbered
port on Windows though.  Anyone know?  Even if it's possible, do we
want to allow it?

            regards, tom lane