| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
| 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 22:21:04 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0101282311160.31303-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Lamar Owen writes:
> What about the X sockets, then?
Sockets are not the problem, regular files are. (At least for tmpwatch.)
> 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.
> I have another question of Peter, Tom, Bruce, or anyone -- is the
> hard-coded socket location in libpq? If so, wouldn't a dynamically
> loaded libpq.so bring this location in for _any_ precompiled, not
> statically-linked, client?
Yes. Good point.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-01-28 22:24:40 | Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-28 22:11:03 | Re: [ADMIN] Controlling user table creation |