Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

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/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?