| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| 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: | 2020-11-25 07:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | e2394d91-d857-f76e-bfa6-250eb79801d6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-11-24 02:57, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
committed, thanks
--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-11-25 07:49:26 | Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets |
| Previous Message | Luc Vlaming | 2020-11-25 07:43:03 | Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery |