Alvaro, Tom, On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:49 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > This made me wonder if storing the unadorned port number is really the > > best way. Suppose we did extend things so that we listen on different > > ports on different interfaces; how would this scheme work at all? > > Yeah, the probability that that will happen someday is one of the > things bothering me about this proposal. I'd rather change the > file format to support that first (it can be dummy for now, with > all lines showing the same port), and then document it second. > How soon do you think the change will occur that will allow for choosing different ports on different interfaces? I am happy to help address this. Relying on a variable number of lines may be counter-productive here if we want postmaster.pid to be easily readable by shell scripts. What if we improved the port line to be something like this? ``` 127.0.0.1=5432 ::1=54321 ``` Basically, a space-delimited set of address/port pairs (delimited by `=` to allow IPv6 addresses to use a colon). If we allow the address side to be dropped, the current format (`5432`) will also be correct parsing-wise. -- Y.
