Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4U4AoE24681
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 30 May 2001 00:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4U49NR20763;
	Wed, 30 May 2001 00:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: exposing conn->sock? 
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10105291955120.28420-100000@spider.pilosoft.com> 
References: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10105291955120.28420-100000@spider.pilosoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
	message dated "Tue, 29 May 2001 20:05:14 -0400"
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:09:23 -0400
Message-ID: <20760.991195763@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200105/126
X-Sequence-Number: 1656

Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> writes:
> So, is there some particular reason conn->sock is not exposed?

Apparently you didn't notice PQsocket() yet ...

			regards, tom lane