Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28966.1339647487@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On mån, 2012-06-11 at 18:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: