On Dec19, 2010, at 21:10 , Magnus Hagander wrote: > 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.
Hm, OK, that pretty much kills the idea. Having to special-case windows seems less appealing than the other options. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
