On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@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.
