Re: new --maintenance-db options

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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