From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-09-03 11:10:47 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEx4_1j5eraBFX=6AgeCW4A4mawg6P4=JVcyH_9Fp4MF5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
>> Windows does not have socketpair(), nor a strict pipe() equivalent. I expect
>> switching to socketpair() makes the Windows side trickier in some ways and
>> simpler in others. +1 for exploring that direction first.
>
> A bit of googling suggests that emulating socketpair() on Windows is not
> that hard: basically you create an accepting socket and connect to it.
> Ugly I guess but likely to be nicer than emulating the two-pipes trick
> exactly.
That sounds a lot like what we were doing in pgpipe() before.. It was
removed in d2c1740dc275543a46721ed254ba3623f63d2204, but that's
because it was dead at the time. Do we need to bring it back?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-09-03 13:14:20 | Re: pg_upgrade bugs |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-09-03 10:14:58 | Re: Is this non-volatile pointer access OK? |