Re: -Wformat-zero-length

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Date: 2012-08-15 03:54:53
Message-ID: 1345002893.17599.19.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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 the single 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.

Well, that would be an interesting feature, but it's debatable which
among this or just adding a new socket type (if available) is harder.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-08-15 04:03:06 Re: Re: [HACKERS] PL/Perl build problem: error: ‘OP_SETSTATE’ undeclared
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-08-15 03:48:37 Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks