Honza Horak <hho...@redhat.com> writes: > On 06/06/2012 04:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 04:38:42 PM Tom Lane wrote: >>> Florian Pflug<f...@phlo.org> writes: >>>> If we're going to have this at all, we should go all the way and >>>> support an arbitrary number of sockets.
>>> Well, that's what I wanted to discuss before Honza starts coding. >>> It's not obvious that there are any use-cases for more than two. >>> It's also not clear whether there is any value in supporting run-time >>> rather than build-time configuration of the socket locations. The >>> Fedora use-case has no need of that, but if people can point to other >>> cases where it would be sensible, we can write the patch that way. >> I had the need to make pg available from multiple chroots via unix sockets. >> The same might come up more frequently with the availability of filesystem >> namespaces... > It seems you were not alone with such need: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2006-09/msg00172.php I had forgotten that conversation, but it does seem like there is interest in this type of configuration. Can anybody confirm that dropping a socket into a chroot or jail would actually work, ie make it possible to connect from inside the chroot to a postmaster running outside? If that's real and not just wishful thinking, it seems like enough of an argument to justify supporting N sockets. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
