Обсуждение: BUG #6689: socket file name convention doesn't allow different IPs and the same port for different pgclusters
BUG #6689: socket file name convention doesn't allow different IPs and the same port for different pgclusters
От
ms@it-infrastrukturen.org
Дата:
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 6689 Logged by: Mark Email address: ms@it-infrastrukturen.org PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3 Operating system: unbuntu-server 12.04 LTS Description:=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 When using /var/run/postgresql/ as unix_socket_directory for "main" and "second" pgcluster and different IP-interfaces (addresse) for every pgcluster (but the same default port number), there are different pid file names (like 9.1-main.pid and 9.1-secondpg.pid) *but* names of unix_sockek files doesn't follow such name conventions. It results in error when trying to run the second pgcluster with another IP but the same (default port 5432): Error: Port conflict: another instance is already running on on /var/run/postgresql with port 5432 regards, Mark
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:45 AM, <ms@it-infrastrukturen.org> wrote: > The following bug has been logged on the website: > > Bug reference: =A0 =A0 =A06689 > Logged by: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mark > Email address: =A0 =A0 =A0ms@it-infrastrukturen.org > PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3 > Operating system: =A0 unbuntu-server 12.04 LTS > Description: > > When using /var/run/postgresql/ as unix_socket_directory for "main" and > "second" pgcluster and different IP-interfaces (addresse) for every > pgcluster (but the same default port number), there are different pid file > names (like 9.1-main.pid and 9.1-secondpg.pid) *but* names of unix_sockek > files doesn't follow such name conventions. > > It results in error when trying to run the second pgcluster with another = IP > but the same (default port 5432): > Error: Port conflict: another instance is already running on on > /var/run/postgresql with port 5432 First of all, this is not a bug - this is intended behaviour. Perhaps the documentation needs to be clearified on the fact that the port number needs to be unique across all instances though. One reason is that the port number is used to control several other things. Just the Unix socket is only one of the things - it also controls the name of shared memory segments, so it still won't work if you work around that. All instances need to have their own ports. If you want to listen on the same port on different IPs, you will need to use something like kernel level ip forwarding to rewrite the access, and actually run PostgreSQL on different ports still. --=20 =A0Magnus Hagander =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/ =A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Mark Schneider <ms@it-infrastrukturen.org> wrote: > Am 15.06.2012 07:56, schrieb Magnus Hagander: > >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:45 AM,<ms@it-infrastrukturen.org> =A0wrote: >>> >>> The following bug has been logged on the website: >>> >>> Bug reference: =A0 =A0 =A06689 >>> Logged by: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mark >>> Email address: =A0 =A0 =A0ms@it-infrastrukturen.org >>> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3 >>> Operating system: =A0 unbuntu-server 12.04 LTS >>> Description: >>> >>> When using /var/run/postgresql/ as unix_socket_directory for "main" and >>> "second" pgcluster and different IP-interfaces (addresse) for every >>> pgcluster (but the same default port number), there are different pid >>> file >>> names (like 9.1-main.pid and 9.1-secondpg.pid) *but* names of unix_sock= ek >>> files doesn't follow such name conventions. >>> >>> It results in error when trying to run the second pgcluster with another >>> IP >>> but the same (default port 5432): >>> Error: Port conflict: another instance is already running on on >>> /var/run/postgresql with port 5432 >> >> First of all, this is not a bug - this is intended behaviour. Perhaps >> the documentation needs to be clearified on the fact that the port >> number needs to be unique across all instances though. > > Even it is not an implementation bug it is a kind of *conception* bug from > my point of view. That's why I'm suggesting updating the documentation to make that more clea= r. > There is *no* real reason why port numbers should be different for differ= ent > IP addresses. True. But as I said, it doesn't just control the TCP port *or* the unix socket name. > There is anything about running further psql instances on different ether= net > interfaces (on one box) in the current doc yet. Right. That's my suggested fix. >> One reason is that the port number is used to control several other >> things. Just the Unix socket is only one of the things - it also >> controls the name of shared memory segments, so it still won't work if >> you work around that. > > When I want to run two separate psql instances they should use also separ= ate > shared memory segments. Exaclty. Which is why they need separate port numbers. If they use the same port number, they'd use the same shared memory segment... >> All instances need to have their own ports. If you want to listen on >> the same port on different IPs, you will need to use something like >> kernel level ip forwarding to rewrite the access, and actually run >> PostgreSQL on different ports still. > > Using different port number for the second ethernet interface works as > expected. Yes. For just the ethernet interface. But again, the parameter controls more things. > How complex is it to implement different unix_socket names in the sourse > code? > (when further instances listen on different ethernet interfaces) Probably not hugely so, but it wouldn't fix your problem. There's an ongoing discussoin on-hackers about being able to listen to multiple unix sockets, and multiple port numbers. But as you'll see if you read up on that one (see archives.postgresql.org), it's all still requiring a single "primary port" to control the other parts. So that also won't solve your problem. --=20 =A0Magnus Hagander =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/ =A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hello Magnus, Thanks a lot for your time checking my email. Am 15.06.2012 07:56, schrieb Magnus Hagander: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:45 AM,<ms@it-infrastrukturen.org> wrote: >> The following bug has been logged on the website: >> >> Bug reference: 6689 >> Logged by: Mark >> Email address: ms@it-infrastrukturen.org >> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3 >> Operating system: unbuntu-server 12.04 LTS >> Description: >> >> When using /var/run/postgresql/ as unix_socket_directory for "main" and >> "second" pgcluster and different IP-interfaces (addresse) for every >> pgcluster (but the same default port number), there are different pid file >> names (like 9.1-main.pid and 9.1-secondpg.pid) *but* names of unix_sockek >> files doesn't follow such name conventions. >> >> It results in error when trying to run the second pgcluster with another IP >> but the same (default port 5432): >> Error: Port conflict: another instance is already running on on >> /var/run/postgresql with port 5432 > First of all, this is not a bug - this is intended behaviour. Perhaps > the documentation needs to be clearified on the fact that the port > number needs to be unique across all instances though. Even it is not an implementation bug it is a kind of *conception* bug from my point of view. There is *no* real reason why port numbers should be different for different IP addresses. There is anything about running further psql instances on different ethernet interfaces (on one box) in the current doc yet. > One reason is that the port number is used to control several other > things. Just the Unix socket is only one of the things - it also > controls the name of shared memory segments, so it still won't work if > you work around that. When I want to run two separate psql instances they should use also separate shared memory segments. > All instances need to have their own ports. If you want to listen on > the same port on different IPs, you will need to use something like > kernel level ip forwarding to rewrite the access, and actually run > PostgreSQL on different ports still. Using different port number for the second ethernet interface works as expected. How complex is it to implement different unix_socket names in the sourse code? (when further instances listen on different ethernet interfaces) regards, Mark -- ms@it-infrastrukturen.org http://rsync.it-infrastrukturen.org