On 2019-12-18 15:24, Hamlin, Garick L wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 02:52:15PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> To implement this, tweak things so that setting DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR
>> to "" has the desired effect. This mostly already worked like that;
>> only a few places needed to be adjusted. Notably, the reference to
>> DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR in UNIXSOCK_PATH() could be removed because all
>> callers already resolve an empty socket directory setting with a
>> default if appropriate.
>
> Would it make sense to support abstract sockets in PostgreSQL?
Maybe, I'm not sure.
> I know it's bit unrelated. I haven't read all the code here I just was
> thinking about it because of the code checking the leading \0 byte of the dir.
We would probably represent abstract sockets with a leading '@' in the
user-facing components and only translate it to the internal format at
the last moment, probably in that very same UNIXSOCK_PATH() function.
So I think that wouldn't be a problem.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
