On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
