Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, all of this is about confusion and error-proneness. I still think
>> that the real problem is that we don't have full control over
>> client-side code, and therefore can't just write off the problem of a
>> client deciding to connect to /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 even if the local DBA
>> thinks the socket would be safer elsewhere.
> Right. I think the lock file in /tmp does help somewhat.
Even if it happens to work (on some platforms) it seems like a kluge.
It strikes me that given the postmaster's infrastructure for listening
on multiple sockets, it would be a pretty small matter of programming
to teach it to listen on socket files in multiple directories not only
one. If we had that, the postmaster could listen in both /tmp and
your-more-secure-directory-of-choice. Surely an actual socket file
would be a more useful "blocker" in /tmp than a dead-weight PID file.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
