On Dec19, 2010, at 21:10 , Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 20:16, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
>> On Dec19, 2010, at 00:54 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in
>>> postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We
>>> could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line.
>>
>> What if the postmaster instead created a second unix socket in its
>> data directory? For security reason, it'd probably need to set
>> the permissions to 0600, but it'd still allow maintenance tools to
>> connect reliably if they only knew the data directory.
>>
>> Don't know if that'd work on windows, though - I have no idea if
>> we even support something similar to unix sockets there, and if so,
>> it it lives in the filesystem.
>
> We don't, and AFAIK there's nothing that lives in the filesystem. You
> have named pipes that live in the namespace, but not within
> directories in the filesystem.
Hm, OK, that pretty much kills the idea. Having to special-case
windows seems less appealing than the other options.
best regards,
Florian Pflug