From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-09-09 15:15:56 |
Message-ID: | 23022.1347203756@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> 1. does this follow the behavior that admin users will not be allowed to invoke postgres child process?
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if we'd want to disable
the no-root check on the Unix side, but it might make sense to. But
this has no bearing on what libpq does, does it?
> 2. to find standalone_backend incase user didn't input, do we need mechanism similar to getInstallationPaths()?
No. There is no reason at all for libpq to think it is part of a
postgres-supplied program, so it can't use any relative-path tricks,
even if it had the program's argv[0] which it does not. Either the
compiled-in path works, or the user has to give one.
(But having said that, if Windows provides a way for a DLL to find
out its own filesystem location, maybe relative path from there would
work.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-09 15:23:24 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-09-09 15:14:19 | Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results |