Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Date
Msg-id CAHyXU0ztwZ14Anyw=tEEZdN=JVJmbG1a9ceEpqj+vDY-DdO2Yw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol  (Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
Responses Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol  (Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2012 8:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Friday, September 07, 2012 11:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
>>>>> Would socketpair(2) be simpler?
>
>
>
>>>>>I've not done anything yet about the potential security issues
>>>>>associated with untrusted libpq connection strings.  I think this
>>>>is still at the proof-of-concept stage; in particular, it's probably
>>>> time to see if we can make it work on Windows before we worry more
>>>>about that.
>
>>> I have started working on this patch to make it work on Windows. The 3
> main things to make it work are:
>
>>The patch which contains Windows implementation as well is attached with this mail. It contains changes related to
following
>>1. waitpid
>>2. socketpair
>>3. fork-exec
>
>>The following is still left:
>> 1. Error handling in all paths
>
> The modified version 2 contains error handling in all paths.

I didn't see that this patch was added to a commitfest  -- should it
have been?  I very much like Tom's proposed starting point for this
feature as a replacement for --single.  Hate to see this die on the
vine.  Would some testing on windows be what's needed to get the ball
rolling?

merlin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay