From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unix-domain socket support on Windows |
Date: | 2020-01-30 18:41:36 |
Message-ID: | 30627.1580409696@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-12-18 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> We have code paths for Unix socket support and no Unix socket support.
>> Now add a third variant: Unix socket support but do not use a Unix
>> socket by default in the client or the server, only if you explicitly
>> specify one.
>>
>> To implement this, tweak things so that setting DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR
>> to "" has the desired effect. This mostly already worked like that;
>> only a few places needed to be adjusted. Notably, the reference to
>> DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR in UNIXSOCK_PATH() could be removed because all
>> callers already resolve an empty socket directory setting with a
>> default if appropriate.
> Perhaps this patch is too boring to be reviewed. If there are no
> objections, I'll commit it soon and then submit the final patches with
> the real functionality for the next commit fest.
Sorry, I'd paid no particular attention to this thread because
I figured it'd take a Windows-competent person to review. But
the patch as it stands isn't that.
The code looks fine (and a big +1 for not having knowledge of
DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR wired into UNIXSOCK_PATH). I wonder though
whether any user-facing documentation needs to be adjusted.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-30 18:54:31 | Brokenness in dump/restore for GENERATED expressions |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-30 18:28:00 | Re: Unix-domain socket support on Windows |