Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets
Date: 2020-11-24 15:49:30
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYYo0Vc3V_MBkivQ-UvQyoBNBop-ZXD4Ma_y47yLVqTiA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> We're subject to whatever the kernel behavior is. If the kernel doesn't
> report address conflicts for Unix-domain sockets, then we can't do
> anything about that. Having an error message ready in case the kernel
> does report such an error is not useful if it never does.
>

It's a file, we can check for its existence in user-space.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-24 15:55:16 Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-11-24 15:48:19 Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path