Honza Horak <hhorak@redhat.com> writes:
> On 06/06/2012 04:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 04:38:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Florian Pflug<fgp@phlo.org> writes:
>>>> If we're going to have this at all, we should go all the way and
>>>> support an arbitrary number of sockets.
>>> Well, that's what I wanted to discuss before Honza starts coding.
>>> It's not obvious that there are any use-cases for more than two.
>>> It's also not clear whether there is any value in supporting run-time
>>> rather than build-time configuration of the socket locations. The
>>> Fedora use-case has no need of that, but if people can point to other
>>> cases where it would be sensible, we can write the patch that way.
>> I had the need to make pg available from multiple chroots via unix sockets.
>> The same might come up more frequently with the availability of filesystem
>> namespaces...
> It seems you were not alone with such need:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2006-09/msg00172.php
I had forgotten that conversation, but it does seem like there is
interest in this type of configuration. Can anybody confirm that
dropping a socket into a chroot or jail would actually work, ie
make it possible to connect from inside the chroot to a postmaster
running outside? If that's real and not just wishful thinking,
it seems like enough of an argument to justify supporting N sockets.
regards, tom lane