When I run psql on freebsd/alpha with latest CVS and no postmaster running,
I get this:

bash-2.03$ psql test
psql: could not connect to server: No such file or directory
        Is the server running locally and accepting
        connections on Unix domain socket "ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½`"?

What's with the bizarre socket name?

Chris


Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:35:04 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Possible psql bug
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:35 pm, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> When I run psql on freebsd/alpha with latest CVS and no postmaster running,
> I get this:
> bizarre socket name

Interesting... I'm running OSF on Alpha and I get the usual 
"/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432". Perhaps it's related to IPv6 socket changes? I'm pretty 
sure we don't have IPv6 support, so it would make sense it doesn't show up 
here if I guess right.

What's your `uname -a`? FreeBSD has had IPv6 support for a while, IIRC.

Regards, Philip.

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:44:27 +1000
Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
Re: Possible psql bug
> Interesting... I'm running OSF on Alpha and I get the usual
> "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432". Perhaps it's related to IPv6 socket changes? I'm
pretty
> sure we don't have IPv6 support, so it would make sense it doesn't show up
> here if I guess right.
>
> What's your `uname -a`? FreeBSD has had IPv6 support for a while, IIRC.

FreeBSD alpha.cacheboy.net 4.7-STABLE FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE #0: Mon Feb  3
19:25:10 WST 2003
adrian@alpha.cacheboy.net:/home/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  alpha

I seem to have IPV6 running:

de0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.0.200 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
        inet6 fe80::200:f8ff:fe22:4ba6%de0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
        ether 00:00:f8:22:4b:a6
        media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP)
        status: active
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
        inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
        inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
ppp0: flags=8010<POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
sl0: flags=c010<POINTOPOINT,LINK2,MULTICAST> mtu 552
faith0: flags=8002<BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500


Chris


Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:33:55 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Possible psql bug
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:33 pm, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> FreeBSD alpha.cacheboy.net 4.7-STABLE FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE #0: Mon Feb  3

Hmm... I have 7.4devel built on FreeBSD 4.8 Intel running ipv6 at home - I'll 
try the same tonight. It might help determine if it's architecture or OS.

Regards, Philip.

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:59:02 +1000
Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
Re: Possible psql bug
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:35:04AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> When I run psql on freebsd/alpha with latest CVS and no postmaster running,
> I get this:
> 
> bash-2.03$ psql test
> psql: could not connect to server: No such file or directory
>         Is the server running locally and accepting
>         connections on Unix domain socket "ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½`"?

This is probably getnameinfo() not supporting AF_UNIX, which I
already was afraid of.  And the return value of getnameinfo()
isn't checked either.

My suggestion was to make our own getnameinfo_unix() like we have
a getaddrinfo_unix() for exactly the same reason.

It should be rather easy to write since we already have a
getnameinfo() in it that supports it.


Kurt


Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:12:27 +0200
Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be>
Re: Possible psql bug
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> When I run psql on freebsd/alpha with latest CVS and no postmaster running,
> I get this:

> bash-2.03$ psql test
> psql: could not connect to server: No such file or directory
>         Is the server running locally and accepting
>         connections on Unix domain socket "���������`"?

> What's with the bizarre socket name?

I suspect the recent IPv6 code changes have broken the SockAddr struct
definition for you, probably by making unportable assumptions about
field size or layout.  Do you have time to look at it, or can you grant
access to your machine for someone else?

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:41:41 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Possible psql bug 