[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David J. MacKenzie) writes: > but the 7.0 method of computing the socket file name (based > only on the port number) doesn't work for multiple instances > listening on the same port on different IP addresses. I was afraid you were planning to run that way. Did you absorb the point about shared memory keys being based (only) on the port number? Unless something's done about that, the above configuration will NOT work, because the different instances will try to use the same shared memory and semaphore sets. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL vir... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hos... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL vir... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Postg... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] P... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting ... David J. MacKenzie
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hosting ... David J. MacKenzie
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual hos... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] PostgreSQL virtual... Ross J. Reedstrom