| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets |
| Date: | 2020-11-24 01:57:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20201124015740.GC3046@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:06:43PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think we are getting a bit sidetracked here with the message wording. The
> reason I looked at this was that "remove socket file and retry" is never an
> appropriate action with abstract sockets. And on further analysis, it is
> never an appropriate action with any Unix-domain socket (because with file
> system namespace sockets, you never get an EADDRINUSE, so it's dead code).
> So my proposal here is to just delete that line from the hint and leave the
> rest the same.
Reading again this thread, +1 on that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-11-24 02:00:20 | Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-11-24 01:54:41 | Re: Online verification of checksums |