PostgreSQL server listen on other port than 5432

Dotan Barak wrote:

Hi.

I'm using CentOS 5.3 and PostgreSQL version 8.1.11.

I opened the posgres SQL to accept incoming connections:

<snip start from postgresql.conf>
listen_addresses = '*'
# comma-separated list of addresses;
# defaults to 'localhost', '*' = all
port = 5432
max_connections = 100
<snip end>

It seems that the posgres SQL sometimes listen on other ports than 5432:
# lsof -i -n -P | grep postg
postmaste 18415 postgres 3u IPv4 99670 TCP *:17583 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres 4u IPv6 102029 TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres 5u IPv4 102030 TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)

Never seen this before. One thing that does leap out though is that
you've got IPv4 and IPv6 sockets active at the same time. Does grepping
for "17583" show anything useful?

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

Thanks for the quick response.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Richard Huxton<dev@archonet.com> wrote:

Dotan Barak wrote:

Hi.

I'm using CentOS 5.3 and PostgreSQL version 8.1.11.

I opened the posgres SQL to accept incoming connections:

<snip start from postgresql.conf>
listen_addresses = '*'
                                      # comma-separated list of addresses;
                                      # defaults to 'localhost', '*' = all
port = 5432
max_connections = 100
<snip end>

It seems that the posgres SQL sometimes listen on other ports than 5432:
# lsof -i -n -P  | grep postg
postmaste 18415 postgres    3u  IPv4  99670       TCP *:17583 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres    4u  IPv6 102029       TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres    5u  IPv4 102030       TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)

Never seen this before. One thing that does leap out though is that you've
got IPv4 and IPv6 sockets active at the same time. Does grepping for "17583"
show anything useful?

grep on what?
(on ps: there isn't anything).

Dotan

Dotan Barak wrote:

grep on what?
(on ps: there isn't anything).

I was thinking of something like:
# find /etc -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep 17583

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Richard Huxton<dev@archonet.com> wrote:

Dotan Barak wrote:

grep on what?
(on ps: there isn't anything).

I was thinking of something like:
 # find /etc -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep 17583

Thanks for clearing this point; Empty string was found.

Dotan

Dotan Barak <dotanba@gmail.com> writes:

I'm using CentOS 5.3 and PostgreSQL version 8.1.11.

Are you using the Red Hat/CentOS postgresql RPMs, or some other
distribution of PG?

It seems that the posgres SQL sometimes listen on other ports than 5432:
# lsof -i -n -P | grep postg
postmaste 18415 postgres 3u IPv4 99670 TCP *:17583 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres 4u IPv6 102029 TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres 5u IPv4 102030 TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)

Odd, particularly seeing that that port was evidently opened before
5432. The only idea that comes to mind is that it's being opened by
a library for Kerberos or LDAP or some such. What auth methods have
you got listed in pg_hba.conf?

regards, tom lane

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Dotan Barak <dotanba@gmail.com> writes:

I'm using CentOS 5.3 and PostgreSQL version 8.1.11.

Are you using the Red Hat/CentOS postgresql RPMs, or some other
distribution of PG?

Yes, I'm using the original RPM that comes with CentOS.

It seems that the posgres SQL sometimes listen on other ports than 5432:
# lsof -i -n -P  | grep postg
postmaste 18415 postgres    3u  IPv4  99670       TCP *:17583 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres    4u  IPv6 102029       TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)
postmaste 18415 postgres    5u  IPv4 102030       TCP *:5432 (LISTEN)

Odd, particularly seeing that that port was evidently opened before
5432.  The only idea that comes to mind is that it's being opened by
a library for Kerberos or LDAP or some such.  What auth methods have
you got listed in pg_hba.conf?

                       regards, tom lane

"trust all".

The weird thing is that i used this port in a service that i wrote
only few seconds before this happened...

Dotan

Dotan Barak <dotanba@gmail.com> writes:

The weird thing is that i used this port in a service that i wrote
only few seconds before this happened...

Oh? How'd you start that service exactly?

I'm thinking maybe the postmaster inherited the open file from its
parent process. If it's not marked close-on-exec, which evidently
it's not since the child processes have it too, then this could have
happened as far as Postgres itself is concerned. I'm having a bit of
a hard time imagining how an open file could have gotten transmitted
from some other initscript to this one, but it seems more probable
than any other theory at the moment.

Do any other processes besides PG have that socket open? If you stop
and restart the postmaster, does it open the socket again?

regards, tom lane

Hi.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Dotan Barak <dotanba@gmail.com> writes:

The weird thing is that i used this port in a service that i wrote
only few seconds before this happened...

Oh?  How'd you start that service exactly?

I'm thinking maybe the postmaster inherited the open file from its
parent process.  If it's not marked close-on-exec, which evidently
it's not since the child processes have it too, then this could have
happened as far as Postgres itself is concerned.  I'm having a bit of
a hard time imagining how an open file could have gotten transmitted
from some other initscript to this one, but it seems more probable
than any other theory at the moment.

Do any other processes besides PG have that socket open?  If you stop
and restart the postmaster, does it open the socket again?

I guess you hit the spot: I have a service that I wrote in python
which uses port 17583.
This process restart the postgres SQL service using
"/etc/init.d/postgres restart"

I think that this may be related to this problem ...

I will mark the socket as close on exec.

Thanks!!!!
Dotan