Subject RE: [firebird-support] Tcp-wrapper support
Author Rick Debay
Well said (at least MUCH better than what I said).

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Helen Borrie
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:43 PM
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] Tcp-wrapper support

At 08:59 AM 23/02/2007, Sean wrote:
> > > Given that you could have TCP wrapper functionality enabled if you
> > used inetd or xitend, why wouldn't you consider using that approach
> > launching FB?
> >

Rick Debay wrote:

> > Our database is not a network service. It will quite happily run
> > useful things (up to a point) if no one connects. So we want the
> > database to start even with no connections.
>A database can't do anything without a connection!

Sean, he is talking about Superserver and I *think* he means he wants
the *server* running.

He's wrong about SS not being a network service, though. Even if he has
cron jobs attaching to the database, it must be through
via localhost, since doesn't work with SS.

>Maybe I'm missing something, but without some process establishing an
>initial database connection, a database will do nothing.

Following this dialogue between you two, where you (Sean) are talking
about xinetd (which doesn't apply to SS) and he is talking about SS
(which is a service in its own right and doesn't use xinetd) it's easy
to see how either of you could be missing something.

>After all, without the engine getting a connection request, the engine
>will never be opened.

True for Classic, not true for SS. If the SS engine process isn't
running, nothing can connect to it. The SS model spawns threads of
itself for connections, even those it creates internally for GC and
other tasks. All this is quite different to Classic, for which xinetd
starts a self-contained instance of the engine process for each

>Further, without an open connection, the engine will close the database


That's true, too. But Superserver itself doesn't shut down when there
are no connections to databases. In fact, when the last connection
detaches from a database, the engine might stay connected to the
database for a while, if it had a GC thread running at the time of the
last detach.

>I think you are trying to hide something, but in fact it is making it
>difficult to understand and solve your problem.

AFAICT, the "problem" is that Rick wants the ability to use TCP wrap to
fiddle about with the network settings during runtime, log requests, IP
addresses, whatever. From what I understand, TCP wrap requires the
executable to have a porthole to the application, that it doesn't have
now. What you are saying about xinetd is all well and good for Classic,
which doesn't even concern itself with handling network requests. Since
xinetd already has this porthole, for Classic it's a non-issue.

This topic doesn't belong here in the support list at all. It should be
taken to Firebird-architect *forthwith*.

^ heLen

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.


Visit and click the Resources item on the
main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !

Also search the knowledgebases at


Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums & communities.

Disclaimer: This message (including attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change. RxStrategies, Inc. shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication or for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. RxStrategies, Inc. does not guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that this communication is free from viruses, interceptions or interference.