Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYYo0Vc3V_MBkivQ-UvQyoBNBop-ZXD4Ma_y47yLVqTiA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
We're subject to whatever the kernel behavior is.  If the kernel doesn't
report address conflicts for Unix-domain sockets, then we can't do
anything about that.  Having an error message ready in case the kernel
does report such an error is not useful if it never does.

It's a file, we can check for its existence in user-space.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path