[pgpool-hackers: 2703] Re: [Proposal] Implementing unix_socket_directories and friends
m.usama at gmail.com
Thu Feb 1 22:48:36 JST 2018
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> We have following in our TODO list:
> As discussed in the URL (actually in a mail pointed by it), probably
> just borrowing the idea from PostgreSQL is the best. If we are going
> this direction, issues are:
> 1) How to migrate from socket_dir to unix_socket_directories?
> I propose leaving socket_dir for 1 major release saying "we are
> deprecating..." and treat it as if there's only one socket directory
> in the unix_socket_directories. If unix_socket_directories is not
> specified (not empty), then we take priority it over socket_dir.
> 2) unix_socket_group, and unix_socket_permissions
> Do we want to implement them along with unix_socket_directories? My
> opinion is "why not". We are going to borrow the implementation from
> PostgreSQL anyway, so it would be easier to implement them along with
> 3) How to treat pcp_socket_dir?
> One big question is whether we need separate pcp_socket_dir from
> socket_dir at all. I think the answer is no, and we should unify it to
> socket_dir and/or unix_socket_directories. Any objection?
I totally agree on all points especially on this one of using single
configuration for pcp and pg
> Comments, suggestions are welcome.
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> pgpool-hackers mailing list
> pgpool-hackers at pgpool.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pgpool-hackers