On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 20:16, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > On Dec19, 2010, at 00:54 , Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in >> postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We >> could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line. > > What if the postmaster instead created a second unix socket in its > data directory? For security reason, it'd probably need to set > the permissions to 0600, but it'd still allow maintenance tools to > connect reliably if they only knew the data directory. > > Don't know if that'd work on windows, though - I have no idea if > we even support something similar to unix sockets there, and if so, > it it lives in the filesystem.
We don't, and AFAIK there's nothing that lives in the filesystem. You have named pipes that live in the namespace, but not within directories in the filesystem. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
