| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
| Date: | 2012-08-14 22:53:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20808.1344984829@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:56:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
I think we can fix it once in libpq and we're done. It'd be driven
by some new connection-string option, and the clients as such would
never need to know that they're not talking to a regular postmaster.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-08-14 23:19:25 | Re: superusers are members of all roles? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-14 22:52:42 | Re: small issue with host names in hba |