Re: pg_upgrade improvements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 15:34:10
Message-ID: 3804.1333640050@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) 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.

Right. Unless I misunderstand the semantics of named pipes on Windows,
we don't want that because in principle some unrelated process could
connect to it as soon as you set it up.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-04-05 15:39:19 Re: pg_upgrade improvements
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-04-05 15:30:25 Re: pg_upgrade improvements