Re: -Wformat-zero-length
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20120814224332.GA28155@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: -Wformat-zero-length (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: -Wformat-zero-length
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:56:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > On 8/10/12 7:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > >> What about having single user mode talk fe/be protocol, and talk to it via a UNIX pipe, with pg_upgrade starting thesingle user backend as a subprocess? > > > I think that's essentially equivalent to starting the server on a > > Unix-domain socket in a private directory. But that has been rejected > > because it doesn't work on Windows. > > > The question in my mind is, is there some other usable way on Windows > > for two unrelated processes to communicate over file descriptors in a > > private and secure way? > > You're making this unnecessarily hard, because there is no need for the > two processes to be unrelated. > > The implementation I'm visualizing is that a would-be client (think psql > or pg_dump, though the code would actually be in libpq) forks off a > process that becomes a standalone backend, and then they communicate > over a pair of pipes that were created before forking. This is > implementable on any platform that supports Postgres, because initdb > already relies on equivalent capabilities. I think the big question is whether we need to modify every binary that pg_upgrade executes to underestand this pipe communication method. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: