Thread: Multiple UNIX-domain sockets?
Hi, I need to run a postgresql server with multiple UNIX-domain sockets, i.e. not just the one in /tmp. Is that possible at all? According to the documentation, the syntax of unix_socket_directory doesn't seem to allow it. (I had the idea to create hardlinks to the socket in /tmp, but unfortunately /tmp is a separate file system on a memory disk, so it's not possible to create hardlinks to somewhere else.) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925
Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> writes: > I need to run a postgresql server with multiple UNIX-domain > sockets, i.e. not just the one in /tmp. Is that possible > at all? No ... why would you need it? (The postmaster could probably be made to do this if it was important, but I don't see the use-case.) > (I had the idea to create hardlinks to the socket in /tmp, > but unfortunately /tmp is a separate file system on a > memory disk, so it's not possible to create hardlinks to > somewhere else.) Wouldn't a symlink work? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Fromme writes: > > I need to run a postgresql server with multiple UNIX-domain > > sockets, i.e. not just the one in /tmp. Is that possible > > at all? > > No ... why would you need it? See below. > (The postmaster could probably be made to do this if it was important, > but I don't see the use-case.) > > > (I had the idea to create hardlinks to the socket in /tmp, > > but unfortunately /tmp is a separate file system on a > > memory disk, so it's not possible to create hardlinks to > > somewhere else.) > > Wouldn't a symlink work? No, it wouldn't. I'm sorry, I should have explained why I need it in the first place. My operating system is FreeBSD, and it supports a feature called "jails" which is similar to chroot, but has a lot of additional functionality (separate process spaces and other things). I would like to run an untrustworthy application within such a jail. The application needs to access a database, for which I will be using PostgreSQL. However, I do not want to install postgres within the same jail, because I intend to use it for other purposes, too. In the future there might be a another application in a different jail, which also accesses a postgres database. Well, because of the chrooted environment, the application cannot access postgres' socket in /tmp. Hardlinks don't work because they're separate filesystems. Symlinks don't work because a symlink cannot point to an object outside of a jail. The only solution would be to use TCP sockets on localhost, but the TCP/IP overhead is considerably higher, especially when there are lots of small queries (which I expect). I've foiund several benchmarks in various mailinglists, some mention a factor of 10. Therefore I would definitely prefer to use UNIX-domain sockets instead, if possible. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. PI: int f[9814],b,c=9814,g,i;long a=1e4,d,e,h; main(){for(;b=c,c-=14;i=printf("%04d",e+d/a),e=d%a) while(g=--b*2)d=h*b+a*(i?f[b]:a/5),h=d/--g,f[b]=d%g;}
Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> writes: > The only solution would be to use TCP sockets on localhost, > but the TCP/IP overhead is considerably higher, especially > when there are lots of small queries (which I expect). > I've foiund several benchmarks in various mailinglists, > some mention a factor of 10. Really? A decently designed TCP stack should have enough shortcuts for local traffic to be competitive with Unix sockets. Have you measured a significant performance problem for yourself? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Fromme writes: > > The only solution would be to use TCP sockets on localhost, > > but the TCP/IP overhead is considerably higher, especially > > when there are lots of small queries (which I expect). > > I've foiund several benchmarks in various mailinglists, > > some mention a factor of 10. > > Really? A decently designed TCP stack should have enough shortcuts > for local traffic to be competitive with Unix sockets. TCP/IP is a very non-trivial protocol. It has to deal with fragmentation, re-assembly, retransmission and reordering, calculating and verifying checksums, transmission window control, packet filtering etc., and all of that includes connections to localhost, too. Compared to that, UNIX domain sockets are extremely simple. > Have you > measured a significant performance problem for yourself? I have to admit that I haven't done any benchmarks myself. The problem is that it's not easy (and takes much time) to set up such benchmarks under realistic conditions and get useful numbers. I've found the following postings: http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-stable_2005/msg07530.html http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-stable_2005/msg07442.html They don't relate to PostgreSQL, though, but to other apps that can use TCP sockets and UNIX sockets. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Python is an experiment in how much freedom programmers need. Too much freedom and nobody can read another's code; too little and expressiveness is endangered." -- Guido van Rossum