Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12685.1384962500@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE
protocol
Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > I would consider sidestepping this entire issue by having the > stand-alone backend create a Unix-domain socket and have a client > connect to that in the normal way. Hmm. But that requires the "stand-alone backend" to take on at least some properties of a postmaster; at the very least, it would need to accept some form of shutdown signal (not just EOF on its stdin). Perhaps more to the point, I think this approach actually breaks one of the principal good-thing-in-emergencies attributes of standalone mode, namely being sure that nobody but you can connect. With this, you're right back to having a race condition as to whether your psql command gets to the socket before somebody else. I think we'd be better off trying to fix the security issue by constraining what can be executed as a "standalone backend". Would it work to insist that psql/pg_dump launch the program named postgres from the same bin directory they're in, rather than accepting a path from the connection string? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: