You quoted Tom Lane. But I already replied him as following, So I quote mine again:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 17:12, Robert Young <yay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It is client applications and services,NOT client applications and database. >> It just term's (client applications, services) misleading. >> To the system view, >> You should definitely known they are relationship between process and >> process. >> Or I could still say some postgres process provide service,and some >> postgres process is client. >> PG process are just another couple of client and service. >> Why my client applications could not get so closer relationship with >> services,just like pg's client process and service's process ? >> >> Still,You got no knowledge about "client applications and services". >> What you said is your assumption. >> Without knowledge, you should consider them equivalent. >> PG got no priority. >> Would you like to answer my puzzle: Why my client applications could not get so closer relationship with services,just like pg's client process and service's process ? Do you have new opinion about my reply to Tom Lane? On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 08:04, Robert Young <yay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 15:40, Robert Young <yay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Which wrong? >> 1.I got no money to buy a good machine to run both the services and database. >> 2.I got no money to buy a good machine to run both the services and >> client applications. >> 3.Client applications hard-coding "localhost". >> 4.PG hard-coding "localhost". > > Since They are equivalent,the answer is obvious: > Both #3 and #4 are wrong. > > I admit, it is broken configuration. > But I said, broken configuration is just better than hard-coding. > Operating system designed flexible, give me the option to solve this > problem in broken configuration way. > Why database system wrote in hard-coding? > > I admit, it is rare circumstance. > But I said, hard-coding is almost always right, NOT always right. > Just do the right thing is our rigorous attitude of work. > > Database should be functional without underlying hostname or DNS facility. > So, I propose this patch to be applied. > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 16:35, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Young <yay...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> You got no knowledge about "client applications". >>>> What you said is your assumption. >>>> Without knowledge, you should consider them equivalent. >>>> PG got no priority. >>> >>> Look, we will explain this once more. Postgres is entitled to assume >>> that "localhost" means the local machine; there are Internet standards >>> saying so. On the other hand, client applications that assume the >>> database server is on the same machine they are on are definitely >>> broken, and need to be fixed. >>> >>> regards, tom lane >>> >> > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
