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