Since our default behavior (at startup) is to have TCP sockets disabled, how many OSs are there that don't support UD sockets? Enough to really be worried about?
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> That would work ... but is it more portable than depending on SysV > >> shmem connection counts? ISTR that some of the platforms we support > >> don't have Unix-style sockets at all. > > > Wouldn't the same thing work with a simple file? Does it have to be a > > UnixDomainSocket? > > No, and yes. If it's not a pipe/fifo then you don't get the > EOF-only-when-no-possible-writers-remain behavior. TCP and UDP > sockets don't show this sort of behavior either. So AFAICS we > really need a named pipe, ie, socket. > > We could maybe do something approximately similar with TCP connection > attempts (per the prior suggestion of letting backends hold the > postmaster's listen socket open; then see if you get "connection > refused" or a timeout from trying to connect) but I don't think it'd be > as trustworthy. Simple mistakes like overly aggressive ipchains filters > would confuse this kind of test. > > regards, tom lane > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
