Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Honza Horak <hhorak(at)redhat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets
Date: 2012-06-09 22:43:38
Message-ID: 1339281818.5751.32.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On lör, 2012-06-09 at 18:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yes, I'm just pointing out that we already have that list
> > (unix_socket_directory in postgresql.conf), except it's currently
> > limited to length 1, because no one has needed a longer one until
> now.
>
> That's not actually quite the same thing as what I suggest above.
> Currently, unix_socket_directory *overrides* the compiled-in choice.
> I'm suggesting that it would be better to invent a list that is *added
> to* the compiled-in choice. If we think it would be best to still be
> able to override that, then I'd vote for keeping unix_socket_directory
> as is, and then adding a list named something like
> "secondary_socket_directories". But if we just turn
> unix_socket_directory into a list, I think the lack of separation
> between primary and secondary directories will be confusing.

By that logic, any list-valued parameter should be split into a primary
and secondary setting. That could actually be moderately useful in some
cases (think search_path, or if we get there, multiple port settings),
but then we should put this into the grammar or processing logic of
postgresql.conf, not invent a bunch of new settings. (E.g.,
unix_socket_directory += ...).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brar Piening 2012-06-10 01:16:03 Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-06-09 22:37:39 Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets