Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Honza Horak <hhorak(at)redhat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets
Date: 2012-06-14 04:18:07
Message-ID: 28966.1339647487@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2012-06-11 at 18:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> 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.

> Well, it's fine if we provide ways not to have the cross-product, but
> there should also be an easy way to get it. I can easily see cases in
> systems I have administered where I would have liked to use two unix
> sockets, two IP sockets, and two ports. Maybe I actually would have
> needed only 7 out of those 8 sockets, but it's far easier to configure,
> document, and explain if I just set up all 8 of them.

Allow me to doubt that people are going to need cross-product socket
sets that are so large that it's painful to enumerate all the cases.
I can believe your 4x2 example, but not ones that are much bigger than
that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2012-06-14 04:33:19 libpq compression
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-06-14 04:14:33 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.