Re: postgresql unix socket connections

From: Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ken Tanzer <ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql unix socket connections
Date: 2019-01-10 10:36:25
Message-ID: CA+t6e1=7imG-hw49X7hMnX7BLa1T85P42bSFN7Z3ZuZ6WyN_5w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Thanks Ken. I just wanted to make sure that it happened because of 9.6
packages installation and not because of any other reason.

‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 10 בינו׳ 2019 ב-11:42 מאת ‪Ken Tanzer‬‏ <‪
ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com‬‏>:‬

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:09 AM Mariel Cherkassky <
> mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Tom,
>> I'm aware of how I can solve it. I wanted to understand why after
>> installing the pg 9.6 packages suddenly psql tries to access the socket on
>> /var/run/postgresql. Does the libpq default unix socket is changed between
>> those two versions ? (9.6,9.2)
>>
>> I hit this kind of problem too. Per Devrim in this thread, the default
> socket location changed in v. 9.4.
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD3a31XLfN0hgEVJPzfKj9JzVqEOpLrn6eE06PGNMq5JsFngPA%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Cheers,
> Ken
>
>
> --
> AGENCY Software
> A Free Software data system
> By and for non-profits
> *http://agency-software.org/ <http://agency-software.org/>*
> *https://demo.agency-software.org/client
> <https://demo.agency-software.org/client>*
> ken(dot)tanzer(at)agency-software(dot)org
> (253) 245-3801
>
> Subscribe to the mailing list
> <agency-general-request(at)lists(dot)sourceforge(dot)net?body=subscribe> to
> learn more about AGENCY or
> follow the discussion.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mariel Cherkassky 2019-01-10 10:40:22 Re: does dml operations load the blocks to the shared buffers ?
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2019-01-10 09:49:14 Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0