Re: pg_upgrade improvements

On Thursday, April 05, 2012 03:46:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Yeah. IMO the right long-term fix is to be able to run pg_dump and psql
> >> talking to a standalone backend, but nobody's gotten round to making
> >> that possible.
> >
> > Are you thinking about something like postgres --single
> > --port=PORT_NUMBER_OR_SOCKET_DIRECTORY?
>
> No, opening up a port is exactly what we *don't* want it to do.
> Otherwise you're right back to worrying about how to make sure that
> unwanted connections don't get in. Notions like private socket
> directories don't solve this because we don't have that option
> available on Windows.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pass a named pipe under windows and use a
AF_UNIX socket everwhere else. Both should be pretty easily usable with the
existing code. PG already seems to use named pipes under windows, so...

Andres