Re: pg_upgrade improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgrade improvements
Date
Msg-id 1469.1333633614@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade improvements  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade improvements  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah.  IMO the right long-term fix is to be able to run pg_dump and psql
>> talking to a standalone backend, but nobody's gotten round to making
>> that possible.

> Are you thinking about something like postgres --single
> --port=PORT_NUMBER_OR_SOCKET_DIRECTORY?

No, opening up a port is exactly what we *don't* want it to do.
Otherwise you're right back to worrying about how to make sure that
unwanted connections don't get in.  Notions like private socket
directories don't solve this because we don't have that option
available on Windows.

The vague idea I had was for libpq to have a connection option that
would cause it to spawn a standalone backend as a child process and
communicate with that over two pipes, just like any popen'd process.
The backend would see this exactly like standalone mode now, except for
speaking FE/BE protocol over its stdin/stdout rather than the existing
ad-hoc user interface for standalone mode.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade improvements
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bugfix for cursor arguments in named notation