On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:54:53PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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.
TODO added: Find cleaner way to start/stop dedicated servers for upgrades http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-08/msg00275.php -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers