Re: Unix-domain socket support on Windows

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Hamlin, Garick L" <ghamlin(at)isc(dot)upenn(dot)edu>
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: 2019-12-18 16:03:40
Message-ID: 5231fafe-bda0-5a4d-d75b-c83d96ee5758@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-12-18 15:24, Hamlin, Garick L wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 02:52:15PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Would it make sense to support abstract sockets in PostgreSQL?

Maybe, I'm not sure.

> I know it's bit unrelated. I haven't read all the code here I just was
> thinking about it because of the code checking the leading \0 byte of the dir.

We would probably represent abstract sockets with a leading '@' in the
user-facing components and only translate it to the internal format at
the last moment, probably in that very same UNIXSOCK_PATH() function.
So I think that wouldn't be a problem.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2019-12-18 16:34:05 Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2019-12-18 15:59:20 Re: Windows port minor fixes