From: | Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto(dot)d(dot)sera(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: stats and unix sockets |
Date: | 2011-12-21 16:50:43 |
Message-ID: | CAEtnbpUwTMUPfSKKiVxs7ZBx-1wWMO6ru-6dggTMMsqB90geTQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto(dot)d(dot)sera(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>> That's a pretty stupid requirement. The stats collector socket is bound
>> to itself, so it's inaccessible from anywhere else (on machine or off)
>> regardless of firewall settings. There's no need to worry about it,
>> and no there is not a provision for doing it via unix socket instead.
>>
>
> Indeed it is a totally harmless thing and the request makes little (if
> any) sense. I will pass the answer over and I do share your stance
> regarding excess in paranoid modes :)
>
>
Can you create a virtual network interface, assign an address to it and
have PostgreSQL listen to it in addition to the socket? I'm thinking not
the eth0:X type but potentially what VirtualBox (vboxnet0), VMware (vmnet0)
or other virtualization products do using brctl.
Greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bèrto ëd Sèra | 2011-12-21 18:18:34 | Re: stats and unix sockets |
Previous Message | Bèrto ëd Sèra | 2011-12-21 16:21:27 | Re: stats and unix sockets |