From: | "Bjoern A(dot) Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists(at)lists(dot)zabbadoz(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PGSTAT: bind(2): Can't assign requested address |
Date: | 2006-04-05 16:49:59 |
Message-ID: | 20060405162701.W76259@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists(at)lists(dot)zabbadoz(dot)net> writes:
>> A datagram socket (SOCK_DGRAM) is called "UDP Socket" when it
>> assumes IP (AF_INET) or IPv6 (AF_INET6) as it's underlying
>> protocol.
>> But you can always use SOCK_DGRAM over AF_LOCAL.
>
> I'm unconvinced that that has the same semantics on all platforms.
> Unix pipes traditionally have different behavior with respect to
> blocking, partial message send, etc.
Are you worried about posix local sockets in general? Or are you
worried about doing sock_dgram over posix local sockets?
just some more thoughts...
- libpq uses posix local sockets (even streaming) as default if
available and no hostname is given. I'd be more worried about
my data...
- posix local sockets have been around for ages and I'd rather
rely on posix local sockets than any IPv6 protocol implementation.
- it's the same API on top of them
- it's posix these days
- it could be configurable/optional
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paolo Lopez | 2006-04-05 21:00:09 | Problema Order By en PosgreSQL 8.1 |
Previous Message | Brock Peabody | 2006-04-05 16:06:07 | Re: BUG #2371: database crashes with semctl failed error |