Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't like the code in fe-connect.c one bit, it's way messed up. > > Yes. We've accepted several extremely questionable (not to mention > poorly documented or completely undocumented) "features" in there > recently. If I'd be

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-30 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm going to disable the URL patch, since it doesn't seem to work and > breaks legitimate uses of database names with funny characters. The > service patch seemed kind of useful, but since it's not documented and I > don't feel like finding out, I th

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't like the code in fe-connect.c one bit, it's way messed up. Yes. We've accepted several extremely questionable (not to mention poorly documented or completely undocumented) "features" in there recently. If I'd been paying more attention I

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Am I handling this properly? I hate to be dragging around the unix > > socket directory name in pghost for too long and hate to be propogating > > the slash test throughout the code. > > It's probably cleanest to do that the way you are doing it.

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am I handling this properly? I hate to be dragging around the unix > socket directory name in pghost for too long and hate to be propogating > the slash test throughout the code. It's probably cleanest to do that the way you are doing it. However, one

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Well, actually, unixsocket can be specified by PQconnectdb. Sounds like it is a big mess. Care to tame it? I am heading to Japan tomorrow and don't want to leave it 1/2 done. > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Am I handling this properly? I hate to be dragging around the unix > > socket director

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > Am I handling this properly? I hate to be dragging around the unix > socket directory name in pghost for too long and hate to be propogating > the slash test throughout the code. ISTM that you could just do this in connectDBStart() where it actually decides on AF_UNIX.

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Done. I did not change PQunixsocket or the unixsocket PQconnectdb > > connection option. Should they be changed too? > > They should be removed because PQhost does this now. I assume you mean PQunixsocket. As part of the database connection, if pghost begins wit

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > Done. I did not change PQunixsocket or the unixsocket PQconnectdb > connection option. Should they be changed too? They should be removed because PQhost does this now. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Bruce Momjian writes: > > > The 7.1 code will the socket location configurable. > > Btw., are you still about to change it to the directory rather than the > file? I'd suggest that you change the GUC parameter to > "unix_socket_directory", to be consistent in naming with related > parameters.

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Yes, I will make the change. > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > The 7.1 code will the socket location configurable. > > Btw., are you still about to change it to the directory rather than the > file? I'd suggest that you change the GUC parameter to > "unix_socket_directory", to be consistent in nam

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Nathan Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> * Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001117 16:41] wrote: could the socket location be made a configurable parameter in 7.1? > /tmp is a bad place for this stuff anyway. There have been *very long* discussions of this issue in the past, see

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
The 7.1 code will the socket location configurable. > At present the Unix socket's location is hard-coded as /tmp. > > As a result of a bug report, I have moved it in the Debian package to > /var/run/postgresql/. (The bug was that tmpreaper was deleting it and > thus blocking new connections.)

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-17 Thread Nathan Myers
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 04:49:43PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001117 16:41] wrote: > > At present the Unix socket's location is hard-coded as /tmp. > > > > As a result of a bug report, I have moved it in the Debian package to > > /var/run/postgresql/.

Re: [HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-17 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001117 16:41] wrote: > At present the Unix socket's location is hard-coded as /tmp. > > As a result of a bug report, I have moved it in the Debian package to > /var/run/postgresql/. (The bug was that tmpreaper was deleting it and > thus blocking new connect

[HACKERS] location of Unix socket

2000-11-17 Thread Oliver Elphick
At present the Unix socket's location is hard-coded as /tmp. As a result of a bug report, I have moved it in the Debian package to /var/run/postgresql/. (The bug was that tmpreaper was deleting it and thus blocking new connections.) I suppose that we cannot assume that /var/run exists across a