On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote: > > On the whole I prefer the solution you mention above: let's generalize > > the postmaster.pid format (and pg_ctl) so that we don't need to assume > > anything about port numbers matching up. The nearby discussion about > > allowing listen_addresses to specify port number would break this > > assumption anyway. If we just add two port numbers into postmaster.pid, > > one for the Unix socket and one for the TCP port, we could get rid of > > the problem entirely. > > After further thought, I think that this approach would make it a good > idea to drop support for alternate port numbers from the present patch. > Let's just deal with alternate socket directories for now. There could > be a follow-on patch that adds support for nondefault port numbers in > both listen_addresses and unix_socket_directories, and fixes up the > postmaster.pid format to support that. > > I will admit that part of my desire to do it this way is a narrow Fedora > rationale: in the Fedora package, we are going to want to back-patch the > alternate-directory feature into 9.2 (and maybe 9.1) so as to fix our > problems with systemd's PrivateTmp feature. The alternate-port-number > feature is not necessary for that, and leaving it out would make for a > significantly smaller back-patch. But in any case, it seems like adding > alternate-port-number support for Unix sockets and not doing it for TCP > ports at the same time is just weird. So I think it's a separate > feature and should be a separate patch. > > +1 I still find it difficult to think of a good use case for multiple ports. cheers andrew
