From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: UUNET socket-file-location patch |
Date: | 2000-11-15 04:28:52 |
Message-ID: | 11839.974262532@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Should the parameter determine the directory or the full file name? I'd
>>>> go for the former, but it's not a strong case.
>>
>> Directory was what I had in mind too, but I'm not sure what Bruce
>> actually did ...
> I did whatever the patch did. I believe it is the full path. I believe
> it is used here:
> #define UNIXSOCK_PATH(sun,port,defpath) \
> ((defpath && defpath[0] != '\0') ? (strncpy((sun).sun_path,
> defpath, sizeof((sun).sun_path)),
> (sun).sun_path[sizeof((sun).sun_path)-1] = '\0') :
> sprintf((sun).sun_path, "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.%d", (port)))
Hmm. I think it would make more sense to make the parameter be just
the directory, not the full path including filename --- for one thing,
doing it like that renders the port-number parameter useless. Why not
#define UNIXSOCK_PATH(sun,port,defpath) \
snprintf((sun).sun_path, sizeof((sun).sun_path), "%s/.s.PGSQL.%d", \
(((defpath) && *(defpath) != '\0') ? (defpath) : "/tmp"), \
(port))
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-15 14:15:50 | Re: Re: UUNET socket-file-location patch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-14 23:54:35 | Re: Re: UUNET socket-file-location patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | igor | 2000-11-15 04:42:04 | One more 486 Optimizations... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-15 04:20:34 | Re: Details for planned template0/template1 change |