From: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-09-11 13:37:36 |
Message-ID: | 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C3828531CC1@szxeml509-mbs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, September 10, 2012 8:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Friday, September 07, 2012 11:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>>> Would socketpair(2) be simpler?
>>>I've not done anything yet about the potential security issues
>>>associated with untrusted libpq connection strings. I think this
>>is still at the proof-of-concept stage; in particular, it's probably
>> time to see if we can make it work on Windows before we worry more
>>about that.
> I have started working on this patch to make it work on Windows. The 3
main things to make it work are:
The patch which contains Windows implementation as well is attached with this mail. It contains changes related to following
1. waitpid
2. socketpair
3. fork-exec
The following is still left:
1. Error handling in all paths
2. During test, I found if i try to run with admin user, it throws error but psql doesn't comes out.
I will look into this issue. However as in previous mail discussion there is a decision pending whether in standalone mode
we need admin user behavior.
3. Will do some more test in Windows.
Currently I have prepared a patch on top of your changes, please let me know if that is okay.
Also, it will be better for me if you can tell me how I can further contribute.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
standalone_backend.1.patch | text/plain | 18.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-09-11 15:39:15 | Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database) |
Previous Message | Hassan Syed | 2012-09-11 13:37:17 | [Feature Request] explaining sql statements executed in UDF's |