Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Дата
Msg-id 2898.1253840365@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на libpq port number handling  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling  (KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling  (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Список pgsql-general
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

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling
Следующее
От: KaiGai Kohei
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling