| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Harold Giménez <harold(dot)gimenez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade improvements |
| Date: | 2012-04-05 15:30:25 |
| Message-ID: | 201204051730.26045.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Not sure if were just missing each others point?
On Thursday, April 05, 2012 05:20:04 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Why would pipes be more useful? Its not like you could build useful
> > pipelines with them.
>
> The point is to avoid the risk that someone else could connect to the
> database at the same time you're doing work on it.
I got that. I just fail to see what the advantage of using two pipes instead
of one socket as every other plain connection would be?
Using named pipes solves that tidbit from Tom:
> Notions like private socket directories don't solve this because we don't
> have that option available on Windows.
If you have named pipes or AF_UNIX sockets you can solve that by either just
passing the fd to your child and not allowing any access to it (no problem on
either platform) or by using a private directory.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-05 15:34:10 | Re: pg_upgrade improvements |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-04-05 15:20:04 | Re: pg_upgrade improvements |