From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
Date: | 2012-08-14 21:56:39 |
Message-ID: | 14182.1344981399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 8/10/12 7:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> What about having single user mode talk fe/be protocol, and talk to it via a UNIX pipe, with pg_upgrade starting the single user backend as a subprocess?
> I think that's essentially equivalent to starting the server on a
> Unix-domain socket in a private directory. But that has been rejected
> because it doesn't work on Windows.
> The question in my mind is, is there some other usable way on Windows
> for two unrelated processes to communicate over file descriptors in a
> private and secure way?
You're making this unnecessarily hard, because there is no need for the
two processes to be unrelated.
The implementation I'm visualizing is that a would-be client (think psql
or pg_dump, though the code would actually be in libpq) forks off a
process that becomes a standalone backend, and then they communicate
over a pair of pipes that were created before forking. This is
implementable on any platform that supports Postgres, because initdb
already relies on equivalent capabilities.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-14 22:43:32 | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-08-14 21:55:55 | Re: macports and brew postgresql --universal builds |