| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_ctl and port number detection |
| Date: | 2010-12-19 19:16:18 |
| Message-ID: | 6BD573B4-2DB4-4C15-A75C-75BD151B8FE3@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec19, 2010, at 00:54 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in
> postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We
> could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line.
What if the postmaster instead created a second unix socket in its
data directory? For security reason, it'd probably need to set
the permissions to 0600, but it'd still allow maintenance tools to
connect reliably if they only knew the data directory.
Don't know if that'd work on windows, though - I have no idea if
we even support something similar to unix sockets there, and if so,
it it lives in the filesystem.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2010-12-19 19:17:40 | Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a db, table and function) |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-12-19 18:57:25 | Re: serializable lock consistency |