From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
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 22:26:21 |
Message-ID: | 5497.1339280781@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On lr, 2012-06-09 at 18:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that we should (continue to) have a hardwired
>> "primary" directory, which is the one that libpq is also configured
>> to look in by default.
> Yes.
>> But we could add a run-time-configured list of secondary directories to establish sockets in.
> 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.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it's better doing it as you suggest, but I
think this needs consideration.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-06-09 22:37:39 | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-09 22:25:30 | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |