| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new --maintenance-db options |
| Date: | 2012-06-25 20:20:54 |
| Message-ID: | 29806.1340655654@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> From pg_upgrade's perspective, it would
> be nice to have a flag that starts the server in some mode where
> nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it and all connections are
> automatically allowed, but it's not exactly clear how to implement
> "nobody but pg_upgrade can connect to it".
The implementation I've wanted to see for some time is that you can
start a standalone backend, but it speaks FE/BE protocol to its caller
(preferably over pipes, so that there is no issue whatsoever of where
you can securely put a socket or anything like that). Making that
happen might be a bit too much work if pg_upgrade were the only use
case, but there are a lot of people who would like to use PG as an
embedded database, and this might be close enough for such use-cases.
However, that has got little to do with whether --maintenance-db is a
worthwhile thing or not, because that's about external client-side
tools, not pg_upgrade.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-06-25 20:22:07 | Re: [PATCH 04/16] Add embedded list interface (header only) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-06-25 20:04:10 | Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal |