| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Honza Horak <hhorak(at)redhat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |
| Date: | 2012-06-11 21:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1339451229.11971.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> and also affects the naming of any UNIX sockets created.
> >
> > Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket
> > locations, you get M*N actual sockets created.
>
> ...I *seriously* doubt that this is the behavior anyone wants.
> Creating M sockets per directory seems patently silly.
How else would it work?
If I say, syntax aside, listen on "ports" 5432 and 5433, and use socket
directories /tmp and /var/run/postgresql, then a libpq-using client
would expect to be able to connect using
-h /tmp -p 5432
-h /tmp -p 5433
-h /var/run/postgresql -p 5432
-h /var/run/postgresql -p 5433
So you do need to create M*N sockets.
I don't really see a problem with that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-06-11 21:54:03 | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-06-11 21:40:35 | Re: pg_basebackup --xlog compatibility break |