Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 17:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Why would that matter? If you configure M ports and N Unix socket
>>> locations, you get M*N actual sockets created.
>> ...I *seriously* doubt that this is the behavior anyone wants.
>> Creating M sockets per directory seems patently silly.
> How else would it work?
> If I say, syntax aside, listen on "ports" 5432 and 5433, and use socket
> directories /tmp and /var/run/postgresql, then a libpq-using client
> would expect to be able to connect using
This argument seems quite circular to me: you are assuming that we will
adopt exactly the behavior that Robert is questioning.
What would make more sense to me is
(1) there is still a *single* "port" parameter, which is what we use for
things like shared memory keys;
(2) listen_addresses (and the hypothetical socket_directories list)
grows the ability to specify a port number in any list element. The
primary port number parameter sets the default.
So for instance
port = 5432
listen_addresses = '*, 127.0.0.1:5433'
results in listening on *:5432 and 127.0.0.1:5433.
> So you do need to create M*N sockets.
> I don't really see a problem with that.
I do: first, it's a lotta sockets, and second, it's not real hard to
foresee cases where somebody actively doesn't want that cross-product.
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
