On mån, 2012-06-11 at 18:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
