| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Florent Guillaume <efgeor(at)noos(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Date: | 2001-01-28 22:24:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3A749C28.BF2DAADA@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > But, let me ask this: is it a good thing for PostgreSQL clients to have
> > hard-coded socket locations? (Good thing or not, it exists already, and
> > I know it does....)
> Perhaps there could be some sort of /etc/postgresql.conf file that is read
> by both client and server that can control these sort of aspects. But I
> don't see much use in it besides port number and socket location.
> Because those are, by definition, the only parameters in common to client
> and server.
Of course, -i and TCP/IP to localhost obviate all of this.
How about an environment variable? PGSOCKLOC? Use the hard-coded
default if the envvar not set? This way multiple postmasters running on
multiple sockets can be smoothly supported.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-28 22:47:23 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-28 22:21:04 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |