On sön, 2012-06-10 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I think we should consider this in the context of allowing both > additional UNIX sockets and additional TCP ports. In the case of TCP > ports, it's clearly no good to turn "port" into a list, because one > port number has to be primary, since it goes into the PID file
Not necessarily. The port number in the PID file is only used for pg_ctl to contact the server, and for that it only needs some port, not the primary one. Also, we write the first listen_address into the PID file for the same reason. So if you think there should be a primary port, then there should also be a primary listen_addresses. > and also affects the naming of any UNIX sockets created. Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket locations, you get M*N actual sockets created. > If we add > secondary_socket_dirs, I think we will also need secondary_ports. One > idea might be to have one new GUC that serves both purposes: > > additional_sockets = '12345, /foo' I was getting around to that, although I don't follow the specific syntax you have chosen here. I would like something where you set host and port together, so you can listen on port 5432 on localhost, and port 5433 on *, for example. So maybe listen_addresses = localhost:5432,*:5433 Web servers usually allow that sort of thing, but if you dig deep there, the configuration settings and their interactions can get pretty complicated. For example, you can usually set a default port and then override it in the listen_addresses equivalent. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
